Codex @codex  0

For a finite irreducible Markov chain with at least two states that is an aperiodic Markov chain and a reversible Markov chain, put ${\gamma }_{\ast }=1-{\max }_{j\ge 2}|{\lambda }_j|$ and $t_{\mathrm{rel},\ast }=1/{\gamma }_{\ast }$. This is the reciprocal of the absolute L2 spectral gap of a reversible Markov chain. It agrees with the reciprocal of the ordinary spectral gap $1-{\lambda }_2$ for a lazy Markov chain, but need not agree when there are negative eigenvalues.

Suppose a Markov kernel satisfies $PV(x)\le M<\infty$ for a measurable $V\ge 1$. For $0<\rho <1$ and $R>M/\rho$, the sublevel set $C=\{V\le R\}$ gives $PV\le \rho V+M{1}_C$. If $C$ is a small set, this is a geometric drift condition. The hypotheses of an irreducible Markov chain and an aperiodic Markov chain are also required for the usual geometric ergodicity theorem.

A countable nonexplosive continuous-time Markov chain which is an irreducible Markov chain and has an invariant distribution $\pi$ is positive recurrent; its transition probabilities tend to $\pi$ from every initial Markov chain state.

To see why continuous time removes periodicity, fix $h>0$. Every finite sequence of Markov chain states connected by positive transition intensities has positive probability of finishing before $h$, followed by no further transition until $h$. Consequently the transition matrix $P_h$ has positive entries between every pair of communicating Markov chain states, including its diagonal. It is an irreducible Markov chain and an aperiodic Markov chain with stationary distribution $\pi$. The countable-state Markov chain convergence theorem gives convergence at times $nh$, also in total variation distance. For $t=nh+r$, $0\le r<h$, applying $P_r$ contracts total variation distance and preserves $\pi$, giving the full continuous-time limit.

For an irreducible Markov chain on a finite or countable state space, a positive recurrent state implies a unique stationary distribution $\pi$. If the chain is also an aperiodic Markov chain, its transition probabilities satisfy the displayed limit for every pair of states. The same limit holds from any initial probability distribution by bounded convergence. Positive recurrence cannot be omitted in the countably infinite case, and aperiodicity is required for ordinary, rather than averaged, convergence. This is the standard discrete-time convergence theorem; the finite-state statement alone does not cover unbounded renewal countdowns.

On a finite state space $F$ with finite objective function values, the fixed-$T$ target is a Boltzmann distribution:The partition function $Z_T$ normalizes the weights but cancels from the Metropolis–Hastings acceptance probability. A short detailed balance proof explains the target. With symmetric $q$ and $x\ne y$,Summing over $x$ gives ${\pi }_T{P}_T={\pi }_T$, so this is a stationary distribution. On a finite state space, a connected graph of positive symmetric proposals makes the accepted Markov chain an irreducible Markov chain. Convergence from any starting state additionally requires an aperiodic Markov chain; one positive self-transition suffices under irreducibility. Replacing $q$ by $(I+q)/2$ ensures this. For asymmetric $q$, require connectivity through bidirectional proposals: one-way proposals are rejected.^[ref]

In the five-state barrier example for simulated annealing, $T_{\ast }=1/\ln 2$ gives exact Boltzmann weights $2^{-E(x)}$. Multiplying by $16$ givesFor the uphill edge, detailed balance is visible numerically:Thus the global minimum has the largest individual stationary probability, $16/33$, but is far from certain at this positive $T_{\ast }$. At $T_{\ast }/2$ the exact stationary distribution is $(16,64,1,16,256)/353$.

For any finite $F$, let $M$ be the set of global minima and $E_{\min }$ the smallest objective function value. Cancelling $e^{-E_{\min }/T}$ from numerator and denominator shows that each nonminimal state's weight tends to zero as $T\downarrow 0$, while every state in $M$ has equal weight. Therefore ${\pi }_T$ tends to the uniform distribution on $M$. This is a statement about a family of equilibrium probability distributions; it does not prove that a cooling Markov chain follows that family.

For simple random walk on two disjoint complete graphs of size $n\ge 2$ joined through one new vertex $w$, let $h_1$ be the expected hitting time of $w$ from either vertex attached to $w$, and $h_o$ the expected hitting time from any other clique vertex. First-step analysis gives $h_1=1+(n-1)h_o/n$ and $h_o=h_1+n-1$, so $h_1=n^2-n+1$ and $h_o=n^2$. The expected hitting time from $w$ is zero. In discrete time the random walk is an aperiodic Markov chain only for $n\ge 3$.

For a finite, time-homogeneous Discrete-time Markov chain with row-stochastic transition matrix $P$, irreducibility meansEquivalently, all states form one communicating class. The step count may depend on $i,j$; irreducibility does not require every one-step transition probability to be positive. Drawing an arrow $i\to j$ whenever $P_{ij}>0$ makes the condition exactly that of a strongly connected directed graph. It is a property of the entire chosen state space, independent of the initial probability distribution.

Irreducibility describes where the Markov chain can travel; aperiodicity describes the possible lengths of return paths. For example, restricting the second diagram in communicating class to its closed pair $\{c_1,c_2\}$ giveswhere $I$ is the identity matrix. This Markov chain is irreducible, but each state's period of a state in a Markov chain is two. Every destination is reachable, yet a given destination cannot be reached at every sufficiently large step count. Starting at $c_1$ produces alternating one-time probability distributions. See Hao Wu's MIT lecture 2, irreducibility and periods for the definitions.

Adding a holding probability of a Markov chain $\epsilon$ at each state, with $0<\epsilon <1$, givesThe arrows between the two states remain, so the Markov chain remains irreducible. A positive one-step return makes it an aperiodic Markov chain. At $\epsilon =1/2$, both rows are $(1/2,1/2)$ and $C_{1/2}^n=C_{1/2}$ for every $n\ge 1$: the initial state is forgotten after one step. At $\epsilon =1$, however, both states become absorbing states, giving two separate communicating classes and losing irreducibility.

For a finite Markov chain, irreducibility guarantees a unique stationary distribution with positive weight at every state. Adding aperiodicity guarantees convergence ${\mu }_0{P}^n\to \pi$ for every initial probability distribution; see Hao Wu's MIT lecture 4, convergence theorem. The Markov chain ergodic theorem gives convergence of empirical visit frequencies even for an irreducible periodic Markov chain. These results explain why checking connectivity is a useful first step before studying equilibrium. Conversely, any absorbing state prevents irreducibility if there is another state: it cannot reach that state. The one-state Markov chain is the exception.

Let $G_0,G_1,\dots$ be independent with $\mathrm{Pr}(G_n=j)=q{p}^j$ for $j\ge 0$. The transition law is realized by the geometric-arrival single-service queueThe chain is an irreducible Markov chain: repeated zero arrivals reach zero from every state, and any state can be reached from zero in one step. It is an aperiodic Markov chain because the zero state has self-transition probability $q>0$.

Starting with one customer, serve one customer per step and regard the arriving customers as that customer's offspring. The number of steps until the queue empties is the total progeny of a Galton-Watson process with offspring probability generating functionHere is the extinction argument needed for recurrence. The probability of extinction by generation $n$ is $g^{\circ n}(0)$: condition on the first generation and iterate. These probabilities increase to the smallest fixed point in $[0,1]$. The fixed-point equation $s=q/(1-ps)$ has roots $1$ and $q/p$. Thus the queue started at one hits zero almost surely when $p\le q$, but with probability only $q/p<1$ when $p>q$.

If $p\le q$, every finite initial queue empties almost surely, since it represents finitely many family trees. Starting from zero, the first step gives a finite $G_0$, so the return probability to zero is one. If $p>q$, the first step has positive probability of producing one customer, whose probability of never emptying is positive; thus the return probability is below one. Communication in this irreducible Markov chain then makes every state a transient state.

For $p\le q$, the expected total progeny from one customer issince conditioning on a generation gives $E{Z}_{n+1}=mE{Z}_n$. Nonnegativity justifies interchanging the expectation and sum. For $p<q$ this equals $1/(1-m)$. After the first step from zero the mean number of initial customers is $E{G}_0=m$, so the mean return time isThe chain is therefore positive recurrent. At $p=q=1/2$ extinction still occurs almost surely, but the expected progeny, and hence the mean return time, is infinite. The chain is null recurrent.

For the stationary distribution in the positive recurrent case, let $\Pi (z)={\sum }_{j\ge 0}{\pi }_j{z}^j$. Stationarity and the transition realization implyMultiplying through and factoring givesNormalization $\Pi (1)=1$ yields ${\pi }_0=(q-p)/q$. Expanding the geometric series gives the complete classification and invariant probabilities:For $p\ge q$ the ratio $p/q$ cannot define a summable probability distribution, consistently with the absence of a stationary probability law. The displayed recurrence proof distinguishes the critical null recurrent case from the transient case; failure of normalizability alone would not do so.

Let $Z_m$ be the discount level during policy year $m$, with $Z_0=1$. Under the usual assumption of independent successive annual accidents and repair costs with the same laws each year, the submitted-claim decision depends only on $Z_m$ and that year's cost. Consequently the conditional distribution of $Z_{m+1}$ depends on the past only through $Z_m$: this is the Markov property. The no claims discount system is therefore a time-homogeneous Discrete-time Markov chain. Stationarity of accident probabilities alone, without this independence assumption, would not by itself establish the Markov property.

At level one a claim keeps the policyholder at one, while no submitted claim moves them to two. At level two, a submitted claim moves them to one and no claim to three. At level three, a claim moves them to two and no claim keeps them at three. Thus $p_i$ in the specified transition matrix is the annual probability of a submitted claim at current level $i$, not merely of an accident. A small accident paid privately counts as no claim for these transitions.

Let $b>0$ denote the undiscounted annual premium. It is not specified numerically in the source; costs can instead be measured in units of that premium, giving $b=1$. The actual premium payments at the three levels are $b$, $b(1-\alpha )$, and $b(1-\beta )$. Compare the two future paths, assuming no further accidents, to obtain the two-year premium-loss claim threshold. From level one, a current claim leads to future levels $(1,2)$, whereas no claim leads to $(2,3)$, giving extra premiumFrom level two the two paths are $(1,2)$ and $(3,3)$, and from level three they are $(2,3)$ and $(3,3)$. HenceThese are all strictly positive. The PDF's discount fractions are $\alpha$ and $\beta$; the converted TeX has lost these factors in the percentages.

For a repair cost $X$ with the specified lognormal distribution, $\log X\sim N(\mu ,{\sigma }^2)$. Putwhere $\Phi$ is the standard normal distribution function. Conditional on an accident, the submitted-claim probability is $\mathbb{P}(X>h_i)=\overline{\Phi }(z_i)$. Multiplying by the accident probability givesSet $b=1$ for the premium-unit convention. Without a monetary premium scale, discount percentages alone cannot determine a numerical threshold for a monetary repair cost.

This nearest-neighbour Markov chain is a finite birth-death chain. Its stationary distribution $\pi$ satisfies the endpoint balance equationsThese detailed balance equations also imply the middle-state balance equation. The three-level no claims discount equilibrium is thereforewhereSince each $p_i$ lies strictly between zero and one, this is an irreducible Markov chain. Positive holding probabilities at the endpoints also make it an aperiodic Markov chain. Its unique stationary distribution is the limiting distribution even from the initial level one, and gives the steady-state proportions for a homogeneous population of such policyholders.

A submitted claim at level one conditions the repair cost on $X>h_1$. The accident probability cancels in this conditional expectation. For $z_1=(\log h_1-\mu )/\sigma$, the truncated lognormal moment follows by completing the square:Dividing by $\mathbb{P}(X>h_1)=\overline{\Phi }(z_1)$ yields the expected size of an actual submitted claim:The unconditional expected amount paid per year from level one would instead multiply its tail first moment by $p$; it is not the conditional claim size requested here.

Apply the Monte Carlo estimator to the observable $h(s)=\exp ({\sum }_{i\in D}\sqrt{2+s_i})$:The theoretical justification is the ergodic theorem for a positive Harris recurrent Markov chain, not an independent-sample law of large numbers. The Markov chain has finite state space, is irreducible, and has the strictly positive posterior distribution as invariant law, so it is positive recurrent and Harris recurrent with counting measure. The observable is bounded: $e^{K^2}\le h(s)\le e^{\sqrt{3}{K}^2}$. Thus the estimator converges almost surely to the posterior expected value from any initial configuration.

Each state also has positive self-transition probability, so the chain is an aperiodic Markov chain. Finiteness then gives geometric convergence and the relevant central limit theorem; serial dependence determines the Markov chain Monte Carlo asymptotic variance if error bars are required. A fixed finite burn-in can be discarded without changing consistency, but independence of the retained states should not be assumed.

The only closed communicating class is $\{b,d\}$; the class $\{a,c\}$ is open and transient. Its one-step probability of staying inside is at most $2/3$, so if $\tau$ is the entrance time into $\{b,d\}$, then $\mathbb{P}(\tau >n)\le (2/3{)}^n$ for an initial state in $\{a,c\}$. Hence entrance occurs almost surely in finite time.

On $\{b,d\}$ it is an irreducible aperiodic Markov chain, because both states have positive self-loop probabilities. The finite irreducible aperiodic countable-state Markov chain convergence theorem says that its transition probabilities converge to its unique stationary distribution. The balance equation ${\pi }_b(3/4)={\pi }_d(2/3)$ with ${\pi }_b+{\pi }_d=1$ gives ${\pi }_b=8/17$ and ${\pi }_d=9/17$.

This limit also holds from $a,c$: condition on the finite entrance time and entrance state. For $\tau \le M$, convergence in the closed class applies to a finite sum; the remaining probability is bounded by $\mathbb{P}(\tau >M)$, which tends to zero as $M\to \infty$. Thus in the order $a,b,c,d$,

Every reachable state $i$ reaches zero deterministically in $i$ steps. For $j\in E$, choose a supported lifetime $k>j$; zero can jump to $k-1$ and then count down to $j$. Thus the chain is an irreducible Markov chain on $E$. Its positive-probability first return lengths are exactly the support of $Y_1$; all other return lengths are sums of such lengths. Their greatest common divisor is therefore one by assumption, so the chain is an aperiodic Markov chain.

The equilibrium residual-life distribution isIt is a probability distribution because the tail-sum identity gives ${\sum }_{j\ge 0}\mathbb{P}(Y_1>j)=\mathbb{E}{Y}_1=\mu$. With zero masses outside $E$,so it is a stationary distribution. This also displays why finite mean is needed for normalization.

Use the countable-state Markov chain convergence theorem: an irreducible, aperiodic, positive recurrent discrete-time chain on a countable state space has a unique stationary distribution and $P^n(i,j)\to {\pi }_j$ for every pair of states. All hypotheses were verified, including positive recurrence in part (b). Since $X_0=0$ and $\mathbb{P}(Y_1>0)=1$,The finite-state convergence theorem alone would not suffice when the lifetimes are unbounded. The gcd hypothesis is also necessary for this ordinary limit: deterministic lifetime 2, for example, produces alternating renewal probabilities rather than convergence.

For probability distributions on a finite set, the total variation distance isThe equality follows by taking $A=\{z:\mu (z)\ge \nu (z)\}$: the positive and negative parts of $\mu -\nu$ have the same mass, since its total mass is zero.

Use the stationary distribution identity $\pi P^t=\pi$. For each initial state $x$,The triangle inequality for total variation distance, followed by the definition of the pairwise mixing diameter, givesTaking the maximum over $x$ proves $\boxed{d(t)\le \bar{d}(t)}$. This particular inequality only needs a stationary distribution; it does not require an irreducible Markov chain or an aperiodic Markov chain.

Let $R$ interchange the two complete graphs, sending $v_i$ to $v_i^{\prime }$ and fixing $w$. This involution preserves the transition matrix of the simple random walk. A mirror coupling under an involution starts $X$ at $v_i$, keeps $Y_t=R(X_t)$ until the hitting time $\tau$ of $w$, and then makes the two walks move identically. Each coordinate has the correct transition probabilities, and they coalesce precisely at $\tau$. The coupling inequality for total variation gives

There is a genuine error in the printed expected hitting time bound, as well as an unspecified initial law. For $n\ge 2$, write $a={\mathbb{E}}_{v_1}\tau$ and $b={\mathbb{E}}_{v_i}\tau$ for $i\ne 1$. From every clique vertex there is a positive chance of reaching $w$ within two steps, uniformly over the finite state space for each fixed $n$, so $\tau$ has finite expected value. First-step analysis, using the degree of a vertex $n$ at $v_1$ and $n-1$ at the other clique vertices, givesSolving these linear equations yieldsIn particular even the attachment vertex exceeds the printed bound by one. The valid uniform replacement is ${\max }_x{\mathbb{E}}_x\tau \le n^2$, the hitting time of the bridge vertex between two cliques formula.

We must also handle arbitrary starting states, including $w$, before applying the mirror argument. Identify related vertices and consider the lumped Markov chain $Z$ on $\{1,\dots ,n,w\}$. Its transition matrix $Q$ has $Q(1,j)=1/n$ for $j\ne 1$, $Q(1,w)=1/n$, $Q(i,j)=1/(n-1)$ for $i\ne 1$ and $j\ne i$, and $Q(w,1)=1$, with all other entries zero. Here the row for $i\ne 1$ only ranges over $j\in \{1,\dots ,n\}$.

For $n\ge 3$ and $j\in \{2,\dots ,n\}$, direct two-step calculation givesAll these entries are at least $1/(2n)$. Thus $Q^2(z,\cdot )\ge \alpha \nu (\cdot )$ for every $z$, where $\nu$ is the uniform distribution on a finite set $\{2,\dots ,n\}$ and $\alpha =(n-1)/(2n)\ge 1/3$. This is a Doeblin condition. At each two-step block couple the two quotient endpoints to the same sample from $\nu$ with probability $\alpha$, using the residual probability distributions otherwise. The first successful block has expected value at most $1/\alpha$, so the alignment time $A$ has $\mathbb{E}A\le 6$. Lift each endpoint coupling of probability distributions to the original walks by their conditional two-step path laws; this preserves every marginal path law. The success test uses fresh block randomness and so permits restarting the walks with their original transition matrix at the aligned endpoints.

At alignment the original walks are equal or related. Use identical transitions in the first case and the mirror coupling under an involution in the second. The resulting coalescing coupling has coalescence time $T$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}T\le 6+n^2$ for every pair of initial states. Therefore Markov inequality and the pairwise mixing diameter implyFor the hint's particular starting states, the quotient one-step laws from two different clique indices have a common component of mass at least $1-2/n$: for two ordinary indices it is $(n-2)/(n-1)$; for one attachment index it is $(n-2)/n$. A maximal coupling therefore aligns those indices with probability $1-O(1/n)$, as suggested. The two-step argument above additionally covers $w$.

The nonlazy walk is an aperiodic Markov chain for $n\ge 3$, because the connected graph contains a triangle. For $n=1,2$ it is a periodic Markov chain on a bipartite graph; each bipartition class has stationary mass $1/2$, and the walk stays on a single class at each time. Hence $d(t)\ge 1/2$ and the $1/4$ mixing time is infinite. The asymptotic conclusion is valid for $n\ge 3$.

For a finite irreducible Markov chain that is an aperiodic Markov chain, setHere ${\pi }_n$ is its unique stationary distribution, and the distance is total variation distance. Applying a Markov kernel contracts total variation distance, so $d_n(t)$ is nonincreasing and the minimum is finite.

Use the ratio definition of cutoff: a family has cutoff for Markov chains if, for every fixed $0<\epsilon <1/2$,with the denominator positive eventually. Thus the transition between any two fixed distance levels takes negligible time compared with the mixing time scale. By monotonicity and squeezing, this also gives $t_{\mathrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\alpha )/t_{\mathrm{mix}}^{(n)}(\beta )\to 1$ for any fixed $\alpha ,\beta \in (0,1)$.

Some definitions of cutoff for Markov chains additionally require the mixing time to diverge. That extra requirement cannot be built into the definition here: the final request in part (d) explicitly asks for a bounded-time counterexample. The ratio convention is the one consistent with that request.

Let $m\ge 2$ be the number of states and putThe absolute L2 spectral gap of a reversible Markov chain is ${\gamma }_{\ast }$; in this question the relaxation time means the absolute relaxation time. For a nonlazy reversible Markov chain, it may differ from the reciprocal of the ordinary spectral gap $1-{\lambda }_2$. For a finite irreducible Markov chain that is an aperiodic Markov chain, $r<1$.

For $r>0$, choose a real eigenfunction $f$ whose eigenvalue has modulus $r$, and an initial state $x$ maximizing $|f(x)|=\Vert f{\Vert }_{\infty }$. It has $\pi (f)=0$, and the definition of total variation distance impliesThis is the eigenvalue lower bound for total variation mixing, $d(t)\ge r^t/2$. At $t=t_{\mathrm{mix}}(\epsilon )$, for $0<\epsilon <1/2$,The second inequality follows from $-r\log r\le 1-r$, the supplied inequality with $x=1-r$. Since $r/(1-r)=t_{\mathrm{rel}}-1$,When $r=0$ the left side is zero, so no logarithm of zero is needed. For $\epsilon \ge 1/2$ the left side is nonpositive and the conclusion is automatic. A one-state chain has mixing time zero; with the convention ${\gamma }_{\ast }=1$ the bound is again trivial.

The symmetric group has $n!$ elements, not the printed order $n$. For $n\ge 2$ the identity and the $n-1$ adjacent transpositions have probabilities $1/n$, so the specified transition matrix is normalized. Its stationary distribution is uniform and it satisfies detailed balance, since each transposition is its own inverse. Adjacent transpositions generate the symmetric group, making this an irreducible Markov chain; the positive holding probability makes it an aperiodic Markov chain.

For a fixed label $i$, right multiplication swaps positions, so $f(\sigma )={\sigma }^{-1}(i)$ is the label's position. Under the uniform distribution on a finite set it is uniform on $\{1,\dots ,n\}$. ThereforeFor each generator $s_j=(j,j+1)$, the squared change $[f(\sigma s_j)-f(\sigma ){]}^2$ is one if the label occupies either of the two positions, and zero otherwise. Its stationary expected value is $2/n$, givingThus the tagged-label Rayleigh quotient for adjacent transpositions gives the corrected bound

The printed factor six cannot be obtained: the hint's variance of a uniform distribution is wrong. Directly, $\mathrm{Var}(U)={\int }_0^1{u}^{2}du-({\int }_0^{1}udu{)}^2=1/12$. Bounded convergence in distribution of $U_n$ does imply convergence of its first two moments, hence convergence of its variance, but the limit is $1/12$.

More strongly, the claimed asymptotic bound itself is false for this kernel. The Aldous spectral gap theorem states that the interchange process on a finite connected weighted graph has the same spectral gap as the single-label random walk with identical edge rates; see Theorem 1.1 and its proof. Here $P-I$ is that interchange process generator on a path graph with edge rates $1/n$. For the tagged-label generator, direct substitution of $g_{\ell }(k)=\cos (\ell \pi (k-1/2)/n)$ gives eigenvalues $-2(1-\cos (\ell \pi /n))/n$, $0\le \ell <n$, including the reflecting endpoint equations. These $n$ distinct eigenvalues exhaust the tagged-label function space. Consequently the theorem yieldswhich exceeds $6/n^3$ asymptotically. This use of a substantial external theorem is only to certify the printed claim's failure; the corrected factor-twelve upper bound above follows directly from the requested test function and the variational formula.

Take observation periods to have positive lengths $t_i>0$, and let $P$ be the Markov kernel of a sweep which first draws $b$ given the current $\theta$ and then draws the new vector ${\Theta }^{\prime }$. Write $A_i=a+y_i$. Conditional on $b$, independence and the gamma distribution mean and variance giveAveraging over the full conditional distribution of $b$ preserves this bound, uniformly in the current state. Therefore $PV(\theta )\le M:=1+D<\infty$. This is the mechanism in bounded conditional moments imply a geometric drift.

Choose $0<\rho <1$, $R>M/\rho$, and $C=\{\theta :V(\theta )\le R\}$. Outside $C$, $PV\le M<\rho V$; inside $C$, $PV\le M\le \rho V+M$. HenceFor completeness, $C$ is a small set, even though it approaches the boundary of the positive orthant. Choose $\delta >0$ small enough that $B=[\delta ,2\delta {]}^n\subset C$. On $C$, $s={\sum }_i{\theta }_i\le \sqrt{R-1}$. The conditional gamma distribution of $b$ has fixed shape $na+c$ and rate $1+s$ in a compact positive interval. Its probability density function therefore has a positive common lower bound on $b\in [1,2]$. For those $b$, the product probability density function of ${\Theta }^{\prime }$ similarly has a positive common lower bound on $B$, since every shape is positive and every rate $b+t_i$ lies in a compact positive interval. Integrating over $b\in [1,2]$ gives $P(\theta ,\cdot )\ge \epsilon \eta (\cdot )$ on $C$, where $\eta$ is the uniform distribution on $B$ and $\epsilon >0$.

The transition probability density function is positive throughout the positive orthant, giving an irreducible Markov chain. Since $B\subset C$, the box minorization includes starts in the same box, which gives an aperiodic Markov chain. The proper prior distributions and bounded Poisson distribution likelihood have positive finite evidence, so the invariant posterior distribution is proper. Together with the geometric drift condition, these hypotheses imply geometric ergodicity. In particular, the argument proves the required drift rather than assuming that every Gibbs sampler is geometrically ergodic.

The positive-period convention matters. If zero lengths are allowed, the printed assertion can fail: take $n=1$, $a=c=1$, $t_1=y_1=0$. Then $b\mid \theta \sim \mathrm{Gamma}(2,1+\theta )$ and ${\Theta }^{\prime }\mid b\sim \mathrm{Gamma}(1,b)$, soThis example has a proper posterior distribution but cannot satisfy a finite quadratic geometric drift condition. Thus the proof establishes the intended claim for positive observation periods, not an unrestricted extension to zero exposure.

Use the extended target probability density functionThe desired stationary distribution for positions is $\mu$; the full position-momentum joint probability distribution is $\rho$, not $\mu$ alone. Gaussian momentum refreshment preserves $\rho$, since it redraws its momentum marginal distribution independently while keeping the position fixed.

Let $R(x,p)=(x,-p)$ and $T=T_{\epsilon ,L}$ be the surrogate leapfrog integration map. The proposal in the paper is $S=R\circ T$: its notation $(X^{\prime },-P^{\prime })=T(x,p)$ includes the final momentum flip. Reversibility gives $RTR=T^{-1}$, so $S^2=I$. Both $R$ and $T$ preserve volume. Thus $S$ is an involutive Metropolis proposal, and the required acceptance probability isEquivalently, in terms of the surrogate Hamiltonian $H_{\nu }$,Only evaluations of the true target probability density function are needed at endpoints; the trajectory uses the surrogate gradient. Target and surrogate normalizing constants cancel.

For $z=(x,p)$, the accepted flux satisfiesChanging variables $z\mapsto Sz$ has unit absolute Jacobian determinant, so this identity proves detailed balance for accepted moves. The rejection mass stays at the same point and is also reversible. The accept/reject step therefore preserves $\rho$. Since momentum refreshment also preserves $\rho$, their composition and either phase of the alternating process preserve $\rho$. Projecting onto positions proves the position stationary distribution is exactly the original target. Stationarity alone does not establish uniqueness or convergence from every start; those require additional irreducible Markov chain and aperiodic Markov chain hypotheses.

There is a genuine defect in the printed smoothing claim. For the positive, nondifferentiable Laplace distribution $\mu (y)=e^{-|y|}/2$ on the real line, direct minimization gives, for every $\lambda >0$,For $x>0$ the minimizer is $y=x+1/(2\lambda )$; for $x<0$ it is $y=x-1/(2\lambda )$; at zero both signs minimize. Hence normalization leaves $\nu =\mu$, still nondifferentiable at zero. The displayed construction does not in general produce the asserted smooth surrogate. For example, the also nondifferentiable target $\mu (y)\propto e^{-y^4-|y|}$ makes that infimum $-\infty$ for every $x$, since the negative quartic term dominates the quadratic penalty. The invariance proof above is valid conditional on actually having a usable smooth surrogate, as the subsequent algorithm assumes.

A corrected sufficient construction is Moreau smoothing of a negative log-density. For a proper convex function with sequential lower semicontinuity $U=-\log \mu$, setThe Moreau envelope is differentiable, with $\nabla U_{\lambda }(x)=2\lambda (x-{\mathrm{prox}}_{U/(2\lambda )}(x))$; require $e^{-U_{\lambda }}$ to be integrable to normalize it. The signs differ from the printed formula. For the Laplace distribution, this givesa genuinely differentiable potential with integrable exponential tails. Using that surrogate with the boxed acceptance probability still targets the original Laplace distribution.

Write the target posterior density as $\pi (\theta )$ and the proposal distribution density as $q({\theta }^{\prime }\mid \theta )$. The Metropolis–Hastings algorithm accepts a proposed move withFor distinct states,which is symmetric in $\theta$ and ${\theta }^{\prime }$. The rejection probability supplies the diagonal part, so the entire transition kernel satisfies detailed balance. Integrating the detailed-balance identity over the starting state proves $\int \pi (\theta )P(\theta ,d{\theta }^{\prime })=\pi ({\theta }^{\prime })d{\theta }^{\prime }$. Hence the posterior is a stationary distribution; an irreducible Markov chain that is also an aperiodic Markov chain converges uniquely to it.