we consider stochastic billiards ( knudsen random walk ) in two - dimensional infinite domains ( ` tubes ' ) of the form @xmath0 where @xmath1 and @xmath2 is a monotone smooth function
. generally speaking , billiards are dynamical systems describing the motion of a particle in a region with reflection rules at the boundary : such systems have been extensively studied in the mathematical and physical literature . when the reflection rule is randomized , we have a stochastic billiard process .
the stochastic models have received much less attention ; invariant distributions for stochastic billiards in general ( mostly bounded ) domains were studied in @xcite . in the present paper
we study the qualitative ( recurrence or transience ) and quantitative ( almost - sure bounds ) behaviour of stochastic billiards in _ unbounded _ domains in the plane .
physical motivation for the billiards model comes from the dynamics of ideal gas models in the so - called knudsen regime where intermolecular interactions are neglected .
the random reflection law is motivated by the fact that the particle is small and the surface off which it reflects has a complicated ( rough ) microscopic structure .
the behaviour of such knudsen flows is of interest in several areas of physics , chemistry , and technology . for physical background , see for instance @xcite . for more on the motivation of the model in the present paper ,
see @xcite and references therein .
we mention some related models at the end of this section .    informally ,
the model that we study can be described as follows .
a particle moves ballistically inside the domain @xmath3 at constant velocity ( of unit magnitude , say ) , and each time that the particle hits the boundary , it is reflected at a random angle @xmath4 to the inwards - pointing normal at the boundary curve @xmath5 , where @xmath6 does not depend on the initial direction of the particle .
so , inside the domain the motion is deterministic : the stochasticity is introduced via the distribution @xmath6 of the random reflections . in this paper , we take the distribution of @xmath6 to be symmetric about @xmath7 .
we consider two types of problem : ( i ) the continuous - time motion of the particle in the tube ; and ( ii ) the discrete - time embedded process obtained by observing the instances of collisions on the boundary ( in other words , unit time elapses between reflections ) .
the embedded process is , from our point of view , of interest in its own right ( and behaves very differently to the continuous - time process ) , and is also a vital ingredient for the study of the continuous - time process .
the asymptotic phenomena that we study for each process are also of two main types : ( i ) recurrence or transience , and existence of moments for recurrence times ; and ( ii ) almost - sure bounds for the location of the particle at time @xmath8 , as @xmath9 .
what kind of regions @xmath3 are of interest ? in the case of @xmath10 , our model becomes symmetrically reflecting motion in a strip .
roughly speaking for the moment , the horizontal motion of the particle is then described by a random walk with zero drift , and so the model is null - recurrent . on the other hand ,
if @xmath11 our tube is a wedge and , with our reflection rule , at any reflection there is a positive chance that the particle will head off to infinity and never return to a bounded set : it is transient . similarly if @xmath12 for @xmath13 , it is not difficult to show that the particle will follow nearby the deterministic trajectory which goes to infinity with linear speed .
this dichotomy motivates the study of tubes with widths that grow sub - linearly , to probe precisely the transition between recurrence and transience .
it is also natural to consider the case where the tube has decreasing width .
the primary family of tubes to bear in mind has @xmath14 for some @xmath15 , although we do consider more general forms for the function @xmath16 .
then there are two main cases : @xmath17 and @xmath18 .
see figure [ tubes ] .
we obtain criteria for recurrence and transience of our processes . loosely speaking ,
these results imply , for example , that for @xmath19 the particle always has transient dynamics , but can be recurrent for @xmath20 depending on the reflection distribution .
also , for very shallow tubes such as @xmath21 , the introduction of random reflections ensures that the process is recurrent , while the corresponding deterministic evolution along the normals is transient .
( see theorem [ gen_g ] below . )
we also obtain almost - sure bounds for the horizontal position of the particle , in both discrete- and continuous - time settings .
thus we have information about the asymptotic speed of the processes .
for example , when @xmath14 for @xmath22 , theorem [ time ] below implies that for all large times @xmath8 the continuous - time process is at position @xmath23 , ignoring logarithmic terms .
in particular , the motion is _ super - diffusive_.    in the case @xmath18 , recurrence is evident . in this case
we obtain a criterion for the finiteness of the mean recurrence - time ( roughly speaking , ` ergodicity ' ) .
we also obtain polynomial estimates for the position of the particle ; the ergodicity has so - called ` heavy tails ' .
a step in our proofs will involve relating the stochastic billiard process to an instance of the so - called lamperti problem ( after @xcite ) of a one - dimensional stochastic process with asymptotically zero mean drift . a crucial ingredient to our proofs for the stochastic billiard process
is provided by some new results for general lamperti - type processes .
these results ( theorems [ prop1 ] , [ lamp_low ] , [ prop6 ] ) are of independent interest , and are in some cases apparently new even for the nearest - neighbour random walk ( birth - and - death chain ) . to obtain our almost - sure bounds for lamperti - type processes , we state and prove some general results on obtaining almost - sure bounds for stochastic processes via semimartingale - type criteria .
we conclude this section with some remarks upon related models .
as previously mentioned , stochastic billiard models have received comparatively little attention .
classical ( that is , non - stochastic ) billiard models have been extensively studied , particularly in mathematical physics , and the literature is vast ; see for instance @xcite .
a common approach in the classical setting is via dynamical systems for which the reflection rule is elastic . in this setting ,
we mention that billiards in certain unbounded domains resembling the tubes considered here ( at least for @xmath24 ) have been studied ; see for instance @xcite and references therein .
an infinite - tube billiard model with a stochastic component ( cf the @xmath25 case here ) is analyzed in @xcite . in the dynamical systems setting , studying ergodicity is typically a primary goal . in the stochastic
setting , the results of the present paper demonstrate a complete range of behaviours , from positive - recurrence ( roughly speaking , ` ergodicity ' ) , through null - recurrence , to transience .    in the next section
we give a more formal definition of the model and state our main results .
the statement of our auxiliary results on the lamperti problem is deferred to section [ lamperti ] .
the rigorous formulation of the stochastic billiard model that we consider is essentially given in @xcite .
we now describe the construction , which is modified slightly from that in @xcite to fit with our context .
let @xmath26 , which will be large but fixed , to be specified later .
for a monotone function @xmath2 , let @xmath27    while the continuous - time process is perhaps most natural to describe , it is more convenient to construct the discrete - time process first , and then to construct the continuous - time process from that .
thus we define a discrete - time markov chain , informally obtained by recording the locations of the successive hits of the particle on the boundary @xmath5 .
this is a markov chain with state - space @xmath28 that we denote by @xmath29 ( @xmath30 ) , where for @xmath31 we write in coordinates @xmath32 .
thus when @xmath33 , @xmath34 .
we call @xmath35 the _ collisions process_. informally , the state @xmath36 represents the absorbing state achieved if the particle attains a trajectory that will never intersect with @xmath5 again .
figure [ tubes ] illustrates the idea of the construction .
we construct @xmath35 formally as follows .
suppose that @xmath37 , with @xmath38 .
let @xmath39 be i.i.d .
random variables with the distribution of a random angle @xmath6 where @xmath40 = 1 $ ] . for @xmath41 , given @xmath42 , we perform a step of our process as follows :    * if @xmath43 , set @xmath44 ; * otherwise , @xmath45 specifies a ray @xmath46 starting at @xmath47 with angle @xmath45 to the interior normal to @xmath5 at @xmath48 ; we adopt the convention that positive values of the angle correspond to the right of the normal ; negative values correspond to the left . *
if the ray @xmath46 does not intersect with @xmath49 , set @xmath50 .
otherwise , let @xmath51 be the first point of intersection of the ray @xmath46 with @xmath5 .
then if @xmath52 , set @xmath53 , else set @xmath54 .
this defines the discrete - time process @xmath35 .
the randomness is introduced through the random draws from the reflection distribution @xmath6 ; if @xmath6 is degenerate ( i.e. , equal to a constant almost surely ) , then @xmath35 is deterministic .
note that the construction ensures that @xmath55 whenever it is defined .
we need some modified form of ` reflection ' away from the vertical boundary at @xmath56 , such as that specified by ( iii ) .
this is for technical reasons , and in particular ensures that the process does not jump directly to @xmath36 , since that case will not be of interest to us here .
the particular form of this ` reflection ' given by ( iii ) is rather arbitrary ; any comparable rule will leave the behaviour unchanged . moreover , if the distribution of @xmath6 has no atom at @xmath7 , we could instead take the reflection rule to be the same on all boundaries without changing the characteristics of the process .
we obtain the continuous - time stochastic process @xmath57 with state - space @xmath58 , which we call the _ stochastic billiard process _ , from the collisions process @xmath35 , essentially by interpolation , as follows .
suppose @xmath59 .
define the successive _ collision times _ of the particle by @xmath60 , and if @xmath61 @xmath62 where @xmath63 is euclidean distance on @xmath64 and @xmath65 ; if @xmath43 set @xmath66 .
then for @xmath67 define @xmath68 so that @xmath69 for any @xmath67
. then for any @xmath70 we define @xmath71 as follows : @xmath72 this defines the process @xmath73 , and in particular @xmath35 is embedded in @xmath73 via @xmath74 , @xmath75 ( where @xmath76 ) .
when @xmath77 , write @xmath78 in coordinates .
a realization of the sequence @xmath79 therefore specifies the processes @xmath35 and @xmath73 via the construction just described .
we now describe some further assumptions that we make on the function @xmath16 that specifies the region @xmath3 and on the distribution of the angle @xmath6 .
suppose that the random variable @xmath6 for the angle of reflection satisfies for some @xmath80 @xmath81 = 1 , \text { and   }   \pr [ \alpha \geq x ] = \pr [ \alpha \leq -x ] \quad ( x \in \r ) , \ ] ] so that @xmath6 is bounded strictly away from @xmath82 and the distribution of @xmath6 is symmetric around @xmath7 .
of special nature is the degenerate case where @xmath83=1 $ ] ; this leads to a deterministic evolution ( i.e. , reflection always occurs along the normals ) .
we will shortly introduce some assumptions on the function @xmath16 defining the domain @xmath3 .
if @xmath11 , @xmath3 is a right - cone , and at any reflection from @xmath5 there is positive probability ( in fact , @xmath84 \geq 1/2 $ ] under condition ( [ alpha ] ) ) that the process @xmath35 ( hence @xmath73 ) will go to @xmath36 : this is an obvious case of transience . moreover , if @xmath6 is degenerate , then it is clear that for @xmath16 strictly monotone @xmath85 if and only if @xmath86 ; so transience is possible even if @xmath87 grows arbitrarily slowly , at least in this deterministic case . on the other hand ,
if @xmath88 , we have that if @xmath6 is non - degenerate then @xmath89 performs a one - dimensional random walk on a half - line with zero drift and uniformly bounded jumps : so in this case @xmath35 will be null - recurrent ( loosely speaking for the moment ) . on another hand , it is at least intuitively plausible that if @xmath87 decreases sufficiently fast , @xmath35 will be positive - recurrent .    in the present paper we will interpolate between these three situations ; formally we assume :    * @xmath2 is monotonic , and thrice - differentiable
. moreover , there exists @xmath90 for which , as @xmath91 , @xmath92 \frac{g(x)}{x } \\
g''(x ) & = [ \gamma ( \gamma-1 ) + o(1 ) ] \frac{g(x)}{x^2}\\     examples of functions satisfying ( a1 ) include @xmath93 or @xmath94 , where @xmath95 .
then in particular we will be interested in the two cases where in addition to ( a1 ) either : @xmath96 or : @xmath97    given ( a1 ) , a necessary condition for ( [ h1 ] ) is that @xmath98 ; a sufficient condition for ( [ h2 ] ) is @xmath18 .
the conditions on the derivatives of @xmath16 imposed by ( a1 ) are natural smoothness constraints that are necessary for our purposes .
a particular case that we will be interested in is where for @xmath15 , @xmath14 for @xmath99
. then @xmath16 satisfies ( a1 ) and moreover satisfies ( [ h1 ] ) , ( [ h2 ] ) for @xmath17 , @xmath18 respectively .
when @xmath100 , elementary geometry , using the fact that @xmath6 is bounded strictly away from @xmath82 , implies that @xmath35 ( and hence @xmath73 ) will almost surely never jump directly to @xmath36 , if @xmath101 is large enough ( see lemma [ cota_delta ] below ) .
thus for the remainder of the paper we can take the state - space of @xmath35 to be @xmath5 and that of @xmath73 to be @xmath102 .    in the next section we state our main results . then in section
[ open ] we mention some open problems , and outline the remainder of the paper .
recall the parameter @xmath26 . set @xmath103 here and throughout the paper we use the convention that @xmath104 .
we will say that the process @xmath73 is recurrent if @xmath105=1 $ ] and transient otherwise ; if recurrent then it is positive- or null - recurrent according to whether @xmath106 < \infty$ ] or not .
similarly for the process @xmath35 , but with @xmath107 instead of @xmath108 .
by the construction of our processes , we have that @xmath109 thus the classification of recurrence or transience transfers directly between @xmath35 and @xmath73 .    since @xmath110
, we have that the nonnegative random variable @xmath111 is bounded above by @xmath112 . thus @xmath113
< \infty$ ] , and @xmath114 = 0 $ ] if and only if @xmath115=1 $ ] . as an example , in the case where for @xmath80 , @xmath6 is uniformly distributed on the interval @xmath116 , it is the case that @xmath113 = \frac{{{\mathop{\rm
tg}}}\alpha_0}{\alpha_0 } - 1 > 0 $ ] .    our first result covers the recurrence / transience classification for our two processes @xmath35 and @xmath73 for the case of a growing tube .
positive - recurrence is clearly ruled out in this case ( as our processes dominate the zero - drift process in a strip ) .
so here the first important issue is that of transience versus null - recurrence .
define @xmath117}{1 + 2\exp[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] } , \ ] ] so that @xmath118 and @xmath119 if and only if @xmath120=1 $ ] .
[ gen_g ] suppose that the random variable @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and that for @xmath98 , @xmath16 satisfies ( a1 ) and ( [ h1 ] ) .
then there exists @xmath121 such that for all @xmath122 and @xmath123 with @xmath124 :    * @xmath35 , @xmath73 are transient if @xmath125 ; and * @xmath35 , @xmath73 are null - recurrent if @xmath126 .    in particular , since @xmath127 , theorem [ gen_g ] says that for @xmath19 , the processes @xmath35 and @xmath73 are always transient , regardless of the distribution of @xmath6 .
a special case of theorem [ gen_g ] is given by @xmath128 for some @xmath129 ; then ( a1 ) holds with @xmath25 and ( [ h1 ] ) holds . in this case
it follows from theorem [ gen_g ] that @xmath35 is transient if @xmath115=1 $ ] , otherwise it is null - recurrent .
that is , the introduction of _ randomness _ ensures that the process returns to a neighbourhood of the origin infinitely often ( with probability @xmath130 ) , whereas in the deterministic case the process is transient .
the same remark applies for other functions @xmath16 that grow as @xmath131 .
next we deal with the case of a narrowing tube , when @xmath16 is decreasing .
now our processes are dominated by the zero - drift random walk in the strip , so transience is impossible .
thus recurrence is evident , and the question of interest in this case is which moments of @xmath132 exist .
the following result is for the collisions process @xmath35 .
[ dim2_erg ] suppose @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and that for @xmath133 , @xmath16 satisfies ( a1 ) and ( [ h2 ] ) .
then there exists @xmath121 such that for all @xmath122 and @xmath134 with @xmath135 :    * @xmath35 is positive - recurrent if @xmath136 $ ] ; and * @xmath35 is null - recurrent if @xmath137 $ ] .
it follows from lemma [ compare](ii ) below that the continuous - time process @xmath73 is also positive - recurrent under the conditions of theorem [ dim2_erg](i ) .
again , theorem [ dim2_erg ] shows that for a sub - polynomial function such as @xmath138 , a non - degenerate @xmath6 leads to null - recurrence .
theorem [ dim2 ] below deals with the important special case of @xmath139 , @xmath17 or @xmath18 .
in particular , when @xmath6 is non - degenerate , it covers the two critical cases omitted in theorems [ gen_g ] and [ dim2_erg ] ; they are null - recurrent .
[ dim2 ] suppose @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and is not degenerate , and that @xmath139 , @xmath15 .
* suppose @xmath140 .
then there exists @xmath121 such that for all @xmath122 and @xmath134 with @xmath135 , @xmath35 is null - recurrent .
* suppose @xmath141 < 0 $ ] .
then there exists @xmath121 such that for all @xmath122 and @xmath134 with @xmath135 , @xmath35 is null - recurrent .
we now turn to our results on almost - sure bounds for our processes , that is , how far from the origin the particle will typically be in both the discrete- and continuous - time processes .
first we give a basic statement that says that such questions are non - trivial .
[ unbounded ] suppose that @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) .
suppose that @xmath16 satisifies ( a1 ) and either ( i ) @xmath16 satisfies ( [ h1 ] ) ; or ( ii ) @xmath16 satisfies ( [ h2 ] ) and @xmath6 is non - degenerate .
then for @xmath101 sufficiently large and any @xmath123 with @xmath142 , a.s .
, @xmath143    if @xmath16 satisfies ( [ h2 ] ) , and @xmath144 is not large enough in this last result , then it is clear that for some distributions of @xmath6 ( with small bound @xmath145 ) the particle may get ` trapped ' in a bounded set .
this case is not of interest for us here .
we want to quantify the result of proposition [ unbounded ] .
again we can proceed more generally , but our results are clearer if we take @xmath14 @xmath146 ) from now on . under the more general assumption ( a1 ) , we believe that our techniques still apply , with some modifications , and that the polynomial exponents in the theorems below remain valid .
our first almost - sure bounds are for the collisions process in the case @xmath17
:    [ time1 ] suppose @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and @xmath14 with @xmath17 .
suppose that @xmath147 for @xmath101 sufficiently large .
for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath149 moreover , if @xmath150 ( so that by theorem [ gen_g ] @xmath35 is transient ) , then there exists @xmath151 such that a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath152    theorem [ time1 ] shows that we have polynomial behaviour , but that on the time - scale of the collisions process @xmath35 , the speed @xmath153 can be very large for @xmath154 close to @xmath130 .
the next result gives the corresponding bounds for the stochastic billiard process @xmath73 . on this time - scale
, the behaviour is very different , since the particle can spend much more time between collisions .
[ time ] suppose @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and @xmath155 for @xmath17 .
suppose that @xmath156 for @xmath101 sufficiently large .
for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all @xmath157 large enough , @xmath158 moreover , if @xmath150 ( so that by theorem [ gen_g ] @xmath73 is transient ) , then there exists @xmath151 such that a.s .
, for all @xmath8 large enough , @xmath159    in particular , in the ( perhaps most interesting ) transient case , ( [ time2c ] ) shows that the asymptotic speed for the particle is zero , i.e. , @xmath160 a.s . , but the motion is super - diffusive .
moreover , as @xmath161 , we approach linear growth , while as @xmath162 , we approach diffusive growth , as expected in view of the remarks just above the statement of ( a1 ) .
( [ time2b ] ) also demonstrates super - diffusive growth , even in the recurrent case .
now we consider the case where @xmath139 for @xmath18 .
if @xmath163 $ ] , we use the notation @xmath164}{(1 - 2\gamma ) \exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] -\gamma } , \ ] ] so that @xmath165 .
the next result deals with the collisions process @xmath35 .    [ time2 ]
suppose @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and is non - degenerate , and @xmath14 for @xmath166 .
suppose that @xmath156 for @xmath101 sufficiently large .
* suppose that @xmath167 $ ] .
then for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , ( [ time1a ] ) and ( [ time1b ] ) hold .
* suppose that @xmath168 $ ] .
then for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath169    now we state the corresponding result for the stochastic billiard process @xmath73 .    [ time3 ]
suppose @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and is non - degenerate , and @xmath14 for @xmath166 .
suppose that @xmath170 for @xmath101 sufficiently large .
* suppose that @xmath167 $ ] .
then for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all @xmath157 large enough , ( [ time2b ] ) holds .
* suppose that @xmath168 $ ] .
then for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all @xmath157 large enough , @xmath171    theorems [ time2](ii ) and [ time3](ii ) show that even in the positive - recurrent case , the behaviour is essentially polynomial ( i.e. , heavy - tailed ) in nature . moreover , the exponents depend explicitly on the reflection distribution @xmath6 , unlike in the other cases .
we briefly mention some open problems for the model studied here .    of interest
is the weak ( distributional ) limiting behaviour of the horizontal components of @xmath35 , @xmath73 .
we have from lemma [ zetalem3 ] and corollary [ cor1 ] below together with theorem 4.1 in @xcite that lamperti s invariance principle ( [ invar ] ) below will hold with @xmath172 and @xmath173 , 1)$ ] , @xmath6 non - degenerate , provided that lamperti s ` condition ( c ) ' from @xcite is satisfied . if lamperti s ` condition ( c ) ' were verified , this would then imply that for @xmath174 , 1)$ ] and @xmath6 non - degenerate , we would have the weak invariance principle as @xmath175 : @xmath176 here @xmath177 is a diffusion process on @xmath178 with kolmogorov backwards equation @xmath179 where @xmath180 ) , \textrm { and } b = 4 ( 1-\gamma)^2 \exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] .\ ] ] a more challenging problem would be to determine whether any corresponding weak limit theory holds for the continuous - time process @xmath181 ( for @xmath182 $ ] , say ) .
it may also be of interest to relax some of our assumptions , such as those on the reflection distribution .
for instance , one might consider distributions for @xmath6 with support on all of @xmath183 $ ] ; there are several ` natural ' distributions relevant in this case @xcite .
the techniques of the present paper require the assumption that @xmath6 be bounded away from @xmath82 .
indeed , if @xmath6 can take value @xmath184 , say , with positive probability , the particle will eventually jump to @xmath36 in the case of a tube of nondecreasing width . on the other hand ,
if @xmath6 has distribution on @xmath183 $ ] with sufficiently light tails at the endpoints ( such that in particular @xmath114 < \infty$ ] , say ) , it may be possible to modify the techniques in the present paper to obtain similar results ; one would need to extend various results from processes with jumps that are bounded to processes with jumps satisfying higher - order moment assumptions , for example .
the structure of the remainder of the paper is as follows . in section
[ speeds ] we present and prove general semimartingale criteria ( of some independent interest ) on almost - sure bounds for one - dimensional stochastic processes . in section [ lamperti ]
we make use of the results in section [ speeds ] , and give some results for the so - called lamperti problem , which are of interest in their own right as well as being a crucial element in the proofs of our main results . in section [ billiards ]
we prove the results stated in section [ mainres ] on the processes @xmath185 .
in this section we present and prove general semimartingale criteria for obtaining upper and lower almost sure bounds for discrete - time stochastic processes on the half - line . these results will provide some of our main tools for the study of processes with asymptotically zero mean drifts in section [ lamperti ] below , but for the present section we work in some generality .
let @xmath186 be a filtration on a probability space @xmath187 .
let @xmath188 be a discrete - time @xmath189-adapted stochastic process taking values in @xmath178 .
suppose that @xmath190 = 1 $ ] for some @xmath191 .
the types of process to which our criteria can be applied are quite general .
for instance , due to the semimartingale nature of the results , we do not require that @xmath192 be a markov process .
this fact is particularly useful if @xmath192 is a process of norms @xmath193 ; even if @xmath194 is markov , @xmath195 will not be , in general .
we anticipate that the general results in this section are widely applicable .
moreover , continuous - time processes may be treated via embedded discrete - time processes .
one condition that we need for some of our results is that jumps of the process @xmath192 are uniformly bounded _
above_. elements of the proofs in the present section extend ideas used in @xcite and @xcite .
our conditions will involve the existence of suitable functions @xmath196 such that the process @xmath197 satisfies an appropriate ` drift ' condition .
our criteria will involve only first - order conditions ( i.e.  expectations ) ; no variance results are required .
our results will yield almost sure bounds for @xmath198 ( and hence @xmath199 ) in terms of the function @xmath196 and simple functions @xmath200 that control our bounds .
the functions @xmath200 will belong to classes of eventually increasing functions defined as follows .
we say function @xmath201 satisfies condition ( c1 ) and @xmath202 satisfies condition ( c2 ) if :    * @xmath203 as @xmath204 , there exists @xmath205 such that @xmath206 is increasing for all @xmath207 , and @xmath208 ; * @xmath209 as @xmath204 , there exists @xmath210 such that @xmath211 is increasing for all @xmath212 , and @xmath213 .
note that the summability condition in ( c2 ) is equivalent to the condition that @xmath214 for some ( hence all ) @xmath215 . throughout this section
we interpret @xmath216 as @xmath217 . with this convention , condition ( c1 )
is satisfied , for example , by @xmath218 or @xmath219 , where @xmath148 , and ( c2 ) is satisfied , for example , by @xmath220 or @xmath221 , @xmath148 .
the first result in this section is a submartingale criterion for an upper bound .
[ thm4a ] let @xmath222 be a discrete - time @xmath189-adapted stochastic process taking values in @xmath178 .
suppose that there exists @xmath223 a nondecreasing function such that , @xmath224 \geq 0 ~\textrm{a.s . } ,   \end{aligned}\ ] ] for all @xmath75 .
also suppose that there exists @xmath225 such that for all @xmath226 @xmath227 \leq b n .\ ] ] define the nondecreasing function @xmath228 for @xmath229 by @xmath230 let @xmath231 satisfy ( c1 ) .
then , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath232    a sufficient condition for ( [ jj2 ] ) is clearly that there exists @xmath233 such that @xmath234 \leq b ' ~\textrm{a.s.},\ ] ] for all @xmath75 .
we next present a variant of theorem [ thm4 ] , which relaxes the condition ( [ jj1 ] ) at the expense of this slightly stronger version of ( [ jj2 ] ) .
theorem [ thm4a ] holds with conditions ( [ jj1 ] ) and ( [ jj2 ] ) replaced by the lone condition ( [ jj3 ] ) .
[ thm4 ]    for the proof of theorem  [ thm4 ] , we need the following :    [ lem13 ] let @xmath235 be an @xmath236-adapted process on @xmath178 and @xmath237 such that @xmath238 = 1 $ ] and for some @xmath225 and all @xmath75 @xmath239 \leq b ~{\rm a.s.}.     \end{aligned}\ ] ] then for any @xmath240 and any @xmath226 @xmath241 \leq ( b
n + z_0 ) x^{-1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    * proof . *
similarly to doob s decomposition ( see e.g.  @xcite , p.  120 ) , set @xmath242 , and for @xmath243 let @xmath244 , where @xmath245 $ ] , @xmath246 , @xmath247 . then @xmath248=\exp [ z_{m+1}- z_m+a_m^{- } \mid { { \mathcal f}}_m ] = a_m+a_m^-=a_m^+\in [ 0,b]\ ] ] so that @xmath249 is a nonnegative @xmath250-submartingale with @xmath251 for all @xmath252 , and @xmath253\le w_0+bn = z_0+bn$ ] .
hence by doob s submartingale inequality ( see e.g.  @xcite , p.  137 ) @xmath254 \leq \pr \left [ \max_{0 \leq m \leq n } w_m \geq x \right ] \leq x^{-1 } \exp [ w_n ] \leq ( b
n + z_0 ) x^{-1 } , \ ] ] as required .
@xmath255 + * proof of theorems [ thm4a ] and [ thm4 ] .
* first we prove theorem [ thm4a ] .
since , by ( [ jj1 ] ) , @xmath256 is a nonnegative submartingale , doob s submartingale inequality implies that , for any @xmath226 , @xmath257 \leq ( a(n))^{-1 } \exp [ f(y_n )   ] \leq b   n   ( a(n))^{-1},\ ] ] using ( [ jj2 ] ) . also , for @xmath258 , @xmath259     = \pr \left [ f \left ( \max_{0 \leq m \leq
n } y_m \right ) \geq a(n ) \right ] , \ ] ] since @xmath196 is nondecreasing . with @xmath228 defined by ( [ finv ] ) , let @xmath260 denote the event @xmath261 then since @xmath262 implies @xmath263 , we obtain from ( [ 1002dz ] ) and ( [ 1002cz ] ) that for all @xmath226 @xmath264    \leq \pr \left
[ f \left ( \max_{0 \leq m \leq n } y_m \right ) \geq a(n ) \right ]     \leq b n   ( a(n))^{-1 }   .\ ] ] now @xmath265 hence by ( [ lll1 ] ) and ( [ lll2 ] ) , along the subsequence @xmath266 for @xmath267 , ( c1 ) and the borel - cantelli lemma imply that , a.s .
, the event @xmath260 occurs only finitely often , and in particular there exists @xmath268 such that for all @xmath269 @xmath270 every @xmath226 sufficiently large has @xmath271 for some @xmath272 ; then , a.s . ,
@xmath273 for all but finitely many @xmath274 .
now since @xmath275 and @xmath228 is nondecreasing , ( [ 001x ] ) follows .    to obtain theorem [ thm4 ] , in the previous argument we replace ( [ 1002dz ] ) by an application of lemma [ lem13 ] with @xmath276 and @xmath277 .
@xmath255 + we now work towards obtaining a lower bound for @xmath278 . for @xmath279 let @xmath280 denote the _ first passage time _ of @xmath281 for @xmath192 , that is @xmath282 then @xmath283 is a nondecreasing sequence of stopping times for the process @xmath192 ; under the condition @xmath284 a.s . , @xmath285 a.s .  for every @xmath281 .    for @xmath279 and all @xmath75 ,
let @xmath286 ( where @xmath287 ) , the process stopped at @xmath280 ; then @xmath288 if @xmath289 and @xmath290 for @xmath291 .
we have the following result , which is a ` reverse foster s criterion ' ( compare theorem 2.1.1 in @xcite ) .    [ thm5a ]
let @xmath222 be a discrete - time @xmath189-adapted stochastic process taking values in @xmath178 , such that for some @xmath292 @xmath293 = 1,\ ] ] for all @xmath75 . fix @xmath279 and
suppose that there exists @xmath295 a nondecreasing function for which , for some @xmath296 , @xmath297 \geq \eps \1_{\ { \sigma_\ell > n \ } } ~\textrm{a.s.}\ ] ] for all @xmath75
. then @xmath298 \leq \frac{1}{\eps } f ( \ell + b ) .\ ] ]    * proof . *  let @xmath279 .
taking expectations in ( [ oo1 ] ) we have for all @xmath299 @xmath300 - \exp [ f(y^\ell_m )    ] \geq \eps \pr
[ \sigma_\ell > m ] .\ ] ] summing for @xmath252 from @xmath7 up to @xmath274 we obtain @xmath301 -    f(y^\ell_0 )     \geq    \eps \sum_{m=0}^{n } \pr [ \sigma_\ell > m ] .\ ] ] since @xmath302 we obtain @xmath303 = \lim_{n \to \infty }    \sum_{m=0}^{n } \pr [ \sigma_\ell > m ]    \leq \frac{1}{\eps } \limsup_{n \to \infty } \exp [ f(y^\ell_{n+1 } ) ]    \leq \frac{1}{\eps } f ( \ell + b),\ ] ] using the fact that , by ( [ bndd ] ) , @xmath304 for all @xmath75 since @xmath196 is nondecreasing .
@xmath255 + now we have the following lower bound :    [ thm6b ] let @xmath222 be a discrete - time @xmath189-adapted stochastic process taking values in @xmath178 , such that condition ( [ bndd ] ) holds .
suppose that there exists @xmath295 a nondecreasing function and @xmath296 for which @xmath305 \geq \eps ~\textrm{a.s.}\ ] ] for all @xmath75 .
let @xmath306 satisfy ( c2 ) . for @xmath307 define the function @xmath308 by @xmath309 then , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath310    * proof . *   first note that by ( c2 ) and the fact that @xmath196 is nondecreasing , we have that @xmath311 is nondecreasing for all @xmath312 sufficiently large .
fix @xmath313 . by markov
s inequality , @xmath314 ]   \leq ( v(\ell))^{-1 } .\ ] ] given ( [ lll ] ) and ( c2 ) , the borel - cantelli lemma implies that , a.s .
, @xmath315 $ ] for only finitely many @xmath316 .
moreover , given that @xmath196 satisfies ( [ oo2 ] ) , we have that ( [ oo1 ] ) holds for all @xmath279 and all @xmath75 .
then lemma [ thm5a ] with ( [ bndd ] ) in this case implies that @xmath317   \leq \eps^{-1 } f(\ell+b)$ ] for all @xmath281 .
thus we have that a.s .
, for some @xmath318 and all @xmath269 , @xmath319 .
hence with the definition of @xmath308 at ( [ fdef3 ] ) we have , a.s .
, for all @xmath281 sufficiently large , @xmath320 since @xmath321 < \infty$ ] for all @xmath281 , we have that @xmath285 a.s .  for all @xmath281 .
moreover , the jumps bound ( [ bndd ] ) implies that , for all @xmath322 , @xmath323 a.s . , so that @xmath324 a.s .. thus , a.s .
, every @xmath75 satisfies @xmath325 for some @xmath326 .
then , a.s .
, @xmath327 for all @xmath274 sufficiently large , since @xmath328 .
then ( [ ee1xx ] ) and ( [ dddxx ] ) imply that , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath329 since @xmath330 and @xmath331 is nondecreasing for @xmath274 sufficiently large .
now taking a sequence of values for @xmath332 converging down to @xmath130 we obtain ( [ 003xx ] ) . @xmath255
in this section we give upper and lower almost - sure bounds for the so - called lamperti problem of a stochastic process on the half - line with mean drift asymptotically zero .
we will need these results for our almost - sure bounds for the stochastic billiard model ; our results for the lamperti problem appear to be new in the generality given here , and in some cases even for a nearest - neighbour random walk .
let @xmath333 be a filtration on a probability space @xmath334 .
let @xmath335 be a discrete - time time - homogeneous stochastic process adapted to @xmath333 and taking values in an unbounded subset @xmath336 of @xmath178 .
we suppose that jumps of @xmath337 are uniformly bounded , that is there exists @xmath225 such that for all @xmath75 and all @xmath338 @xmath339 = 0 , ~\textrm{a.s.}.\ ] ] under the jumps condition ( [ jumps ] ) , the jump - moment functions @xmath340 $ ] and @xmath341 $ ] given for @xmath342 by @xmath343 , \quad ( n \in \z^+)\ ] ] are well - defined ; in particular @xmath344 is bounded above . our basic assumption for this section will be ( a2 ) below .
* let @xmath337 be a discrete - time stochastic process on @xmath178 satisfying ( [ jumps ] ) with @xmath345 as given by ( [ mus ] ) .    for some of the results in this section
we also assume that there exists @xmath346 such that , for all @xmath338 @xmath347 we will sometimes make the further assumption that @xmath348 = 1 .\ ] ]    the model that we concentrate on is a particular case of the so - called lamperti problem ( see @xcite ) of a stochastic process on @xmath178 with mean drift asymptotically zero : that is @xmath349 as @xmath91 .
our results do not actually assume @xmath349 , but it is in this case ( in fact , in the case @xmath350 ) that they are of most interest . as mentioned by lamperti @xcite , and as is also true for the results in this section , only the first two moments @xmath345 of the jump distribution are important : there is some form of ` invariance principle ' at work .
we will be mainly concerned with the case that , from the point of view of recurrence , turns out to be critical ; that is where @xmath351 remains bounded away from zero and from infinity .    in the particular case of a nearest - neighbour random walk , where @xmath337 is supported on @xmath352 ,
the problem reduces to that of a simple random walk with asymptotically zero perturbation : that model was studied by harris @xcite and by hodges and rosenblatt @xcite , and is amenable to special methods for so - called birth - and - death chains .
thus many results are present in the literature for the nearest - neighbour case : in section [ literature ] below we briefly mention some of these results and their relation to the results given in this section . for the applications in the present paper , however , we can not use these nearest - neighbour results .
thus we need to prove results in the general lamperti setting .
in fact , as we will point out below , some of the results that we give in the present section seem to be new even for the nearest - neighbour situation .
thus the results that we state in this section are of independent interest .    as well as being of interest in their own right ,
stochastic processes on the half - line with mean drift asymptotically zero are important for the study of multidimensional processes by the method of lyapunov - type functions ( see e.g.  @xcite ) .
for example , if @xmath235 is a zero - drift process with bounded jumps on @xmath353 , @xmath354 , the process @xmath355 is supported on the half - line and has mean drift asymptotically zero .
clearly , the process @xmath356 will not be nearest - neighbour ; thus the generality of results like lamperti s @xcite and those in the present section is valuable .
fix @xmath357 , which will need to be large for some of our results .
we say that @xmath337 is _ recurrent _ or _ transient _ according to whether the return time @xmath358 is almost surely finite or not ; in the former case we distinguish positive- and null - recurrence according to whether the return time has finite or infinite expectation .
the recurrence and transience properties of @xmath337 were studied by lamperti , who proved the following result ( see theorems 3.1 and 3.2 of @xcite with theorem 2.1 of @xcite ; also theorem 3 of @xcite for a finer result ) .
note that all of the conditions that we state in this section involving evaluating @xmath359 , @xmath344 only need apply for @xmath338 .
[ lmpti ] @xcite suppose that ( a2 ) , ( [ ass2 ] ) , and ( [ limsup ] ) hold .
* if for all @xmath360 , @xmath361 , then @xmath337 is null - recurrent for any @xmath362 .
* suppose that there exists @xmath363 such that for all @xmath360 @xmath364 then @xmath337 is transient for any @xmath365 .
* suppose that there exists @xmath363 such that for all @xmath360 , @xmath366 .
then @xmath337 is positive - recurrent for any @xmath362 .    for our almost - sure lower bounds ,
we impose an additional ` reflection ' condition that ensures that we can avoid getting trapped in a bounded set .
condition ( a3 ) below is the most appropriate way of doing this for our applications to the stochastic billiard model , but is clearly stronger than is necessary for the results in the present section .
* given @xmath367 , if a jump would take @xmath368 we replace the jump with @xmath369 instead .
we now state our results on almost - sure bounds . in the general setting of the present section , the only almost - sure bound result that we could find in the literature is also due to lamperti @xcite
; see proposition [ lmpti2 ] in our discussion of the literature below .
lamperti s bound is a weaker version of our result theorem [ prop1](i ) below , while theorem [ prop1](ii ) gives a complementary lower bound .
[ prop1 ] suppose that assumption ( a2 ) holds .
* suppose that there exists @xmath370 such that for all @xmath371 @xmath372 then for any @xmath373 , for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath374 , @xmath375 * suppose that ( a3 ) holds , and that there exists @xmath376 such that for all @xmath377 @xmath378 then for any @xmath379 , for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath380    in the transient case , we prove the following lower bound that strengthens , in some sense , theorem [ prop1](ii ) in this case .    [ lamp_low ] suppose that ( a2 ) and ( a3 ) hold .
if ( [ mu_trans ] ) holds for some @xmath363 and all @xmath381 , then there exists @xmath151 such that , for any @xmath382 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath383    we could find no reference for a result like theorem [ lamp_low ] , even in the nearest - neighbour case .
we prove theorem [ lamp_low ] in section [ lamplowprf ] ; it may be possible to extract bounds for the exponent @xmath384 in the logarithmic term in terms of the constants @xmath385 by keeping track of the constants in our proofs .
note that the transient critical lamperti problem for which ( a2 ) and ( a3 ) hold , and @xmath386 for some @xmath387 and all @xmath312 large enough , satisfies the conditions of each of the results in theorems [ prop1 ] and [ lamp_low ] .
the following discussion suggests that without taking into account finer behaviour ( such as the smallest value of @xmath363 for which ( [ mu_trans ] ) is satisfied ) , one can not expect to improve upon theorem [ lamp_low ] .
let @xmath388 be the symmetric simple random walk on @xmath353 , @xmath354 , so that for @xmath389 , @xmath390 = ( 2d)^{-1}$ ] if and only if @xmath391 .
then elementary calculations show that @xmath392 - \exp [ ( \| s^d_{n+1 } \| - \| s^d_n \|)^2 \mid s^d_n = x ] \to 1 - \frac{2}{d}\ ] ] as @xmath393 ; thus the process @xmath394 is in precisely the critical lamperti situation , and for @xmath395 satisfies ( [ mu_trans ] ) . for @xmath395 , a classical result of dvoretzky and erds @xcite says that for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, @xmath396 for all but finitely many @xmath75 , and that this bound is sharp in that for @xmath397 the inequality ( [ delower ] ) fails infinitely often with probability @xmath130 .
in particular , it is at least informally reasonable to argue that by letting @xmath398 in ( [ delower ] ) one might not expect to improve in general upon the arbitrary logarithmic factor in theorem [ lamp_low ] .
now we state results on almost - sure bounds that we will need for our stochastic billiard model when @xmath139 with @xmath18 . again
these results seem to be new in the generality given here .
theorem [ prop6 ] below is further demonstration of the phenomenon of _ polynomial ergodicity _ for the critical lamperti problem , as also evidenced by results of @xcite in the context of stationary measures .
[ prop6 ] suppose that ( a2 ) and ( [ ass2 ] ) hold .
* suppose that there exists @xmath399 such that for all @xmath312 sufficiently large @xmath400 then for any @xmath373 , any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath401 * suppose that ( a3 ) holds , and that there exists @xmath402 such that for all @xmath312 sufficiently large @xmath403 then there exists @xmath404 such that for any @xmath379 , for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath405    note that the @xmath406 case of theorem [ prop6](ii ) gives a weaker form of the lower bound in theorem [ prop1](ii ) under a somewhat weaker condition .
before we prove the results stated in section [ lampres ] , we briefly discuss the existing literature related to the present section .
this is done in section [ literature ] below .
then we give the proofs of theorems [ prop1 ] and [ prop6 ] in section [ lampprf ] and theorem [ lamp_low ] in section [ lamplowprf ] .      in the general
setting of the so - called lamperti problem , when ( a2 ) holds , there seem to be few almost - sure bounds known .
the next result , due to lamperti himself ( see theorems 2.1 , 2.2 , 4.2 , and 5.1 in @xcite ) , includes an almost - sure upper bound in a particular case where the conditions of ( i ) or ( ii ) in proposition [ lmpti ] hold .
[ lmpti2 ] @xcite suppose that ( a2 ) holds , and that for any finite interval @xmath407 @xmath408 = 0.\ ] ] suppose that for @xmath409 @xmath410 then for any @xmath373 , for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 @xmath411 in addition , suppose that ( [ null ] ) holds uniformly in @xmath373 .
then as @xmath175 the following invariance principle applies : @xmath412 where @xmath413 is a diffusion process on @xmath178 with kolmogorov backwards equation @xmath414 ( see section 3 in @xcite for details ) .
thus theorem [ prop1](i ) improves upon the bound in ( [ lampbnd ] ) .
note that the condition ( [ null ] ) , which does not distinguish between null - recurrence and transience , implies ( [ limsup ] ) .
a special case of the lamperti problem on @xmath178 is the case where the process @xmath337 is supported on @xmath352 and only nearest - neighbour jumps are allowed .
this special case has received much more attention than the general case described in section [ lampres ] above ; now we briefly describe known results in the nearest - neighbour case .
when they exist , these nearest - neighbour results are sharper than the general results that we give in section [ lampres ]
. thus it may be possible to sharpen the bounds in the results in section [ lampres ] .    in the nearest - neighbour case
, @xmath337 is sometimes known as a _ birth - and - death _ chain ( or birth - and - death random walk ) .
precisely , suppose that there exists a sequence @xmath415 with @xmath416 such that for all @xmath417 and @xmath75 @xmath418 =   1 - \pr [ \eta_{n+1 } = x+1 \mid \eta_n = x ] = p_x,\ ] ] with reflection from @xmath7 governed by @xmath419   = 1 - \pr [ \eta_{n+1 } = 1 \mid \eta_n = 0 ] = p_0.\ ] ] ( in the literature , the slightly more general model where the walk is allowed to stay in the current position also appears .
this introduces no new essential features however . )
such processes have been extensively studied in various contexts .
they are often amenable to explicit computation ; one particularly fruitful approach is via orthogonal polynomials , dating back at least to karlin and mcgregor @xcite and subsequently employed for instance by voit @xcite .
a recent reference is @xcite , to which we are indebted for bringing to our attention several of the papers cited in this section .
the one - step mean drift of this walk is for @xmath417 @xmath420 =   1 -2p_x .\ ] ] we are in the lamperti situation if we assume @xmath421 .
a case of particular interest is when @xmath416 satisfies @xmath422 for @xmath423 and @xmath424 . then with the notation at ( [ mus ] ) , @xmath425 and @xmath426 .    in the nearest - neighbour case
, partial versions of the recurrence result proposition [ lmpti ] were given in e.g.  @xcite .
when ( [ nnw ] ) holds , proposition [ lmpti ] implies that if @xmath427 , @xmath337 is null - recurrent , while if @xmath428 , @xmath337 is transient , positive - recurrent according to @xmath429 , @xmath430 . in the critical case @xmath431 , @xmath337 is transient if @xmath432 , null - recurrent if @xmath433 , and positive - recurrent if @xmath399 .    almost - sure
results are known for certain null - recurrent and transient situations .
the following two propositions collect some known results of this type ; special cases were dealt with in @xcite .
the next result follows from theorem 2.11 of @xcite ; it deals with the transient case with @xmath428 .
( there appears to be a typo in the statement of theorem 2.11 in @xcite . )
@xcite suppose that ( [ nnw ] ) holds for @xmath428 and @xmath434 .
then for any @xmath373 , a.s .
@xmath435    theorem 7.1 of lamperti @xcite gives a corresponding result for more general processes ( in the manner of section [ lampres ] ) , but with convergence in probability only .
the following iterated logarithm result that applies in the @xmath436 , @xmath437 case of ( [ nnw ] ) follows from theorem 4(b ) of @xcite ( compare also theorem 1.3 of @xcite ) .
@xcite suppose that there exist @xmath438 with @xmath439 such that for all @xmath312 sufficiently large @xmath440 then for any @xmath373 , a.s .
@xmath441    apparently missing , for example , is the complete result in the case where ( [ nnw ] ) holds with @xmath431 and @xmath442 , for which the walk is null - recurrent ; a one - sided result is given in theorem 4(a ) of @xcite .
also , there seem to be no ( sharp ) existing results in the critical positive - recurrent case where ( [ nnw ] ) holds with @xmath431 and @xmath443 . thus theorems [ prop1 ] , [ lamp_low ] , and [ prop6 ]
add to known results even in the nearest - neighbour case .      in order to prove theorems [ prop1 ] and [ prop6 ] , we apply the general results on almost - sure bounds for discrete - time stochastic processes given in section
[ speeds ] .
+ * proof of theorem [ prop1 ] .
* for @xmath371 and @xmath75 we have @xmath444    & = 2x \exp [ \eta_{n+1 } -\eta_n \mid \eta_n = x ]       + \exp [ ( \eta_{n+1 } -\eta_n)^2 \mid \eta_n = x ] \nonumber\\ & = 2x \mu_1(x ) + \mu_2(x).\label{aa1}\end{aligned}\ ] ] under the conditions of part ( i ) of the theorem , the right - hand side of ( [ aa1 ] ) is uniformly bounded above .
hence we can apply theorem [ thm4 ] , with @xmath445 , taking @xmath446 and @xmath447 .
this proves part ( i ) .    under the conditions of part ( ii ) of the theorem , we have that the right - hand side of ( [ aa1 ] ) is strictly positive for all @xmath377 . under condition ( a3 )
it suffices to consider the process on @xmath448 .
hence we can apply theorem [ thm6b ] , with @xmath445 , taking @xmath446 and @xmath449 .
this proves part ( ii ) .
@xmath255 + now we prepare for the proof of theorem [ prop6 ] .
we need two more lemmas , to identify suitable functions @xmath196 with which to apply the criteria of section [ speeds ] .    [ lem5 ] suppose that ( a2 ) and ( [ ass2 ] ) hold .
suppose that there exists @xmath450 such that ( [ c4 ] ) holds for all @xmath312 sufficiently large .
then there exists @xmath370 such that for all @xmath371 @xmath451 \leq c.\ ] ]    * proof . *
it follows from taylor s theorem applied to the function @xmath452 that for @xmath453 as @xmath454 @xmath455 .\end{aligned}\ ] ] now conditioning on @xmath456 and setting @xmath457 , taking expectations in the last displayed equation gives @xmath458\\ & = \frac{x^{1+\kappa}}{\log ( 1+x ) }   \left [     \frac{1+\kappa}{2x^2 } ( 2x \mu_1(x ) + \kappa \mu_2 ( x ) )   -\frac{1}{2x^2 \log ( 1+x ) } ( 2x \mu_1(x ) + ( 2\kappa+1 ) \mu_2(x ) + o(1 ) )   \right ] \\ & \leq \frac{x^{\kappa-1}}{(\log ( 1+x))^2 }   \left [ -\frac{1}{2 } \mu_2 ( x ) + o(1 ) \right ] ,   \end{aligned}\ ] ] using ( [ c4 ] ) .
then with ( [ ass2 ] ) this yields the result .
@xmath255    [ lem6 ]
suppose that ( a2 ) and ( [ ass2 ] ) hold .
suppose that there exists @xmath402 such that ( [ c5 ] ) holds for all @xmath312 sufficiently large .
then there exist @xmath404 , @xmath459 such that for all @xmath377 @xmath460 \geq \eps.\ ] ]    * proof .
*  this time , it follows from taylor s theorem that for @xmath453 as @xmath454 @xmath461 .\end{aligned}\ ] ] now conditioning on @xmath456 and setting @xmath457 , taking expectations in the last displayed equation gives @xmath462\\ & = x^{1+\kappa }   \left [     \frac{1+\kappa}{2x^2 } ( \log ( 1+x ) ) ( 2x \mu_1(x ) + \kappa \mu_2 ( x ) )   + \frac{1}{2x^2 } ( 2x \mu_1(x ) + ( 2\kappa+1 ) \mu_2(x ) + o(1 ) )    \right ] \\ & \geq x^{\kappa-1 } \left [ \frac{\kappa+1}{2 } \mu_2 ( x ) + o(1 ) \right ] \geq \eps > 0 , \end{aligned}\ ] ] for all @xmath312 large enough , using ( [ c5 ] ) , ( [ ass2 ] ) , and the fact that @xmath402 .
@xmath255 + * proof of theorem [ prop6 ] .
* by lemma [ lem5 ] , we can apply theorem [ thm4 ] with @xmath463 , @xmath447 , and @xmath445 to obtain part ( i ) of the theorem . on the other hand , by lemma [ lem6 ] we can apply theorem [ thm6b ] with @xmath464 , @xmath449 , and @xmath445 to obtain part ( ii ) of the theorem .
@xmath255      suppose that ( [ mu_trans ] ) holds for some @xmath363 .
our strategy for the proof of theorem [ lamp_low ] is to construct a scale on which the process @xmath337 is transient with mean drift that is positive and bounded uniformly away from @xmath7 .
fix @xmath465 .
denote @xmath466 and for @xmath467 define the intervals @xmath468,\ ] ] where @xmath469 is as in the jumps bound ( [ jumps ] ) ; then for @xmath470 sufficiently large , @xmath471 do not overlap .
we look at the process @xmath337 at the moments at which it enters an interval @xmath472 different from the last one visited .
we define the random times @xmath473 inductively as follows .
set @xmath474 ; for @xmath475 , if @xmath476 , let @xmath477 .
consider the embedded process @xmath478 .
the conditions of theorem [ lamp_low ] imply those of theorem [ prop1](ii ) , so in particular ( [ limsup ] ) holds .
this together with the jumps bound ( [ jumps ] ) implies that @xmath479 = 1\ ] ] for any @xmath467 , so that the process @xmath480 is well - defined and the random times @xmath481 are almost surely finite for each @xmath482 .
denote @xmath483 , \quad(k \in \n).\ ] ] the next result says that the process @xmath480 has uniformly positive mean drift .
[ scale - l ] under the conditions of theorem [ lamp_low ] , there exist @xmath465 and @xmath484 such that for all @xmath467 @xmath485    * proof .
*  let @xmath486 .
taylor s theorem implies that as @xmath91 @xmath487   = x^{\lambda-2 } \left [   \lambda x \mu_1 ( x ) +   \frac{\lambda(\lambda -1)}{2 } \mu_2 ( x ) + o ( x^{-1 } ) \right ] , \ ] ] using ( [ jumps ] ) and ( [ mus ] ) . then by ( [ mu_trans ] ) and ( [ jumps ] ) again , we have @xmath487   \leq x^{\lambda-2 } \left [   ( \lambda /2 )   ( \delta   + \lambda b^2 ) + o ( x^{-1 } ) \right],\ ] ] where @xmath469 is the jumps bound in ( [ jumps ] ) .
it follows that for @xmath488 @xmath487 \leq 0 , \ ] ] for all @xmath312 sufficiently large .
hence for the stopping times @xmath481 it is also the case that @xmath489 \leq 0 , \ ] ] for all @xmath312 sufficiently large .
then the supermartingale property ( [ superm ] ) implies that for @xmath470 large enough and all @xmath467 @xmath490 \leq [ ( 1+\beta)^r- b]^\lambda .\ ] ] also , we have that @xmath491 = & ~ p_r \exp [ \eta_{\ell_{k+1}}^\lambda \mid   \eta_{\ell_k } \in i_r , \eta_{\ell_{k+1 } } \in i_{r+1 } ] \nonumber\\ & + ( 1-p_r ) \exp [ \eta_{\ell_{k+1}}^\lambda \mid   \eta_{\ell_k } \in i_r , \eta_{\ell_{k+1 } } \in i_{r-1 } ] \nonumber\\ \geq & ~ p_r [ ( 1+\beta)^{r+1 } + b ] ^\lambda + ( 1-p_r ) [ ( 1+\beta)^{r-1 } + b]^\lambda .\end{aligned}\ ] ] combining ( [ bb1 ] ) and ( [ bb2 ] ) we see that one can choose @xmath465 , @xmath484 such that @xmath492 for all @xmath493 .
+ consider , for @xmath475 , @xmath494 then the process @xmath495 is a stochastic process on @xmath496 with nearest - neighbour transitions that tracks which interval @xmath472 the embedded process @xmath480 is in . with @xmath497 as defined by ( [ prdef ] ) , we have @xmath498 = 1-   \pr [ z_{k+1 } = r-1 \mid z_k = r ] = p_r .\ ] ] let @xmath499 denote the time of the first visit of @xmath500 to @xmath467 , i.e. @xmath501 for @xmath467 , @xmath502 define @xmath503.\ ] ] in words , @xmath504 is the probability that the process @xmath500 hits @xmath493 in finite time , given that it starts at @xmath505 .    the next result will enable us to show , loosely speaking , that the process @xmath500 leaves each state for good only shortly after its first visit .
[ lastexit ] under the conditions of theorem [ lamp_low ] , there exists @xmath370 such that @xmath506    * proof .
*   to estimate the required hitting probability we introduce an auxiliary process .
fix @xmath507 , which we will eventually take to be large .
let @xmath467 .
define the nonnegative process @xmath508 for @xmath509 by @xmath510 then we have for @xmath226 and @xmath509 @xmath511   = \exp   \ { - c_0^{-1 }   ( n - r )     \ }    \exp [ \exp   \ { - c_0^{-1 } ( z_{t+1 } - z_t ) \ } - 1   \mid z_t = n ] .\end{aligned}\ ] ] we will make use of the fact that there exists @xmath512 such that @xmath513 for all @xmath312 with @xmath514 . since @xmath500 has nearest - neighbour jumps , it follows that @xmath515 \nonumber\\   \leq & - c_0^{-1 } \exp [ z_{t+1 } - z_t \mid z_t = n ]
+ c_1 c_0^{-2 } \exp [ ( z_{t+1 } - z_t ) ^2 \mid z_t = n ] \nonumber\\   \leq & - c_0^{-1 } ( 2 p_n - 1 ) + c_1 c_0^{-2 } , \end{aligned}\ ] ] using ( [ zjumps ] ) and the fact that @xmath500 has nearest - neighbour jumps again .
it then follows from ( [ uiop1 ] ) , ( [ uiop2 ] ) , and lemma [ scale - l ] that we can choose @xmath516 sufficiently large , not depending on @xmath493 , so that for any @xmath226 @xmath517 \leq 0 , \ ] ] for all @xmath509 .
now let @xmath502 and take @xmath518 .
recall the definition of the stopping time @xmath519 from ( [ kappaz ] ) . from ( [ ww ] )
we have that @xmath520 is a nonnegative supermartingale , so that @xmath521 exists a.s . , and @xmath522 \geq \exp [ w_{\kappa_r^z } ] $ ] .
it follows that for any @xmath467 , @xmath502 @xmath523 = \exp \ { -c_0^{-1 } s \ } \geq \exp [ w_{\kappa_r^z } \1_{\ { \kappa_r^z < \infty\ } } ] = \gamma ( r , s ) , \ ] ] using ( [ gammadef ] ) .
in particular , it follows that for some @xmath370 large enough @xmath524 completing the proof of the lemma .
@xmath255 + to complete the proof of theorem [ lamp_low ] , we need to translate our results for the embedded process @xmath480 back to the underlying process @xmath337 . + * proof of theorem [ lamp_low ] . *
consider the nearest - neighbour process @xmath525 on @xmath496 , as defined by ( [ zkdef ] ) .
recall the definition of @xmath499 from ( [ kappaz ] ) .
let @xmath526 denote the time of the _ last _ visit of @xmath500 to @xmath467 , i.e. @xmath527 similarly for the process @xmath337 set for @xmath528 @xmath529 with lemma [ lastexit ] , the borel - cantelli lemma implies that , a.s .
, for only finitely many @xmath467 does @xmath500 return to @xmath493 after visiting @xmath530 .
, for all but finitely many @xmath467 , @xmath531 set @xmath532 observe that by definition of the process @xmath500 we have that a.s .
for some @xmath370 and all @xmath312 large enough @xmath533 by ( [ firstlast ] ) .
again by the definition of @xmath500 , it now follows that a.s .  for some @xmath534 @xmath535 for all @xmath312 large enough .
the conditions of theorem [ lamp_low ] imply those of theorem [ prop1](ii ) . hence the lower bound in theorem [ prop1](ii ) applies , and so for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 @xmath536 it follows that for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath537 @xmath538 so by ( [ a1 ] ) and ( [ a2 ] ) there exist @xmath539 such that , a.s .
, for all @xmath540 @xmath541 by the transience of @xmath337 , we have that a.s .
@xmath542 for all but finitely many @xmath75 .
hence a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 we have @xmath543 using the jumps bound ( [ jumps ] ) for the final inequality .
this proves the theorem .
suppose that at time @xmath75 we have @xmath544 for @xmath545 , and then @xmath546 is reflected at angle @xmath6 to the normal .
denote @xmath547 , the jump of the horizontal component of @xmath35 .
also set @xmath548 , so @xmath549 .
we now proceed to obtain estimates for @xmath550 and its moments .
the next lemma gives an upper bound on @xmath550 that follows from the fact that for large enough @xmath312 our tube will be almost flat , while @xmath6 is bounded strictly away from @xmath82 .
*  fix @xmath80 . assuming ( a1 )
, we have that @xmath555 and hence @xmath556 as @xmath91 ; in particular we can choose @xmath101 large enough so that for all @xmath557 , @xmath558 and @xmath559 for some @xmath560 .    by symmetry , it suffices to suppose that we start on the positive half of the curve , i.e. , at @xmath561 .
we have that @xmath562 is bounded by @xmath563 first suppose ( [ h1 ] ) holds .
then @xmath16 is nondecreasing , so @xmath564 .
consider @xmath565 , represented as @xmath566 when @xmath567 in figure [ cota_delta_fig ] .
the reflected ray at angle @xmath145 to the normal from @xmath561 has equation in @xmath568 given by @xmath569    take @xmath570 . as @xmath571 , we have @xmath572 for all @xmath312 large enough .
consider the line @xmath573 this line intersects @xmath5 at @xmath574 and it intersects the reflected ray at angle @xmath145 to the normal from @xmath561 at @xmath575 with @xmath576 since @xmath577 for @xmath575 , the curve @xmath578 remains above the line @xmath579 for all @xmath575 .
thus @xmath580 is bounded by @xmath581 as given by ( [ inter1 ] ) ; this is @xmath582 in figure [ cota_delta_fig ] .
a related geometrical argument also provides the proof of proposition [ unbounded ] : + * proof of proposition [ unbounded ] .
* under condition ( [ h1 ] ) , so that @xmath87 is strictly increasing , the deterministic path in the case @xmath115=1 $ ] tends to infinity .
it is then clear that for any distribution for @xmath6 in this case that there exists @xmath148 for which @xmath585 > \eps\ ] ] for all @xmath312 large enough .
the stated result for @xmath35 then follows in this case , and hence the result for @xmath73 also .
now suppose that condition ( [ h2 ] ) holds and that @xmath6 is non - degenerate
. then there exists @xmath586 for which @xmath587 > \eps_1 $ ] . under ( a1 ) , @xmath555 as @xmath91 , so we can choose @xmath101 big enough so that the angle @xmath588 to the normal satisfies @xmath589 for all @xmath552 . from ( a1 )
, we have that @xmath16 is monotone and @xmath590 .
then it follows that for all @xmath312 in any bounded interval @xmath591 , ( [ updrift ] ) holds for some @xmath148 .
thus with positive probability @xmath35 reaches any finite horizontal distance , and the result follows in this case also .
@xmath255 + the next lemma gives crucial estimates for the first two moments of @xmath550 .
these require fairly lengthy computations .
[ moments_g ] suppose that @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) and @xmath87 satisfies ( a1 ) , and also or .
then as @xmath91 @xmath592=2g'(x)g(x)(1 + 2\e [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] ) + o(g(x)^3/x^2 ) ; \ ] ] and @xmath593=        4 g(x)^2\exp[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha]+o(g(x)^3/x).\ ] ]    * proof .
*  first suppose that ( [ h1 ] ) holds ( the case of an increasing tube )
. then @xmath564 .
take @xmath312 sufficiently large so that @xmath594 .
consider the jump @xmath595 .
we need to consider 3 cases . in the first case , @xmath596 ( see figure  [ delta+ ] ) , @xmath597 in the second case , ( see figure  [ delta ] ) , @xmath598 , @xmath599 in the third case , ( see figure  [ delta- ] ) , @xmath600 , @xmath601          we start with the first of the three cases . using taylor s theorem , we can write @xmath605,\ ] ] where @xmath606 $ ] .
thus , writing @xmath607 , @xmath608 where we have used the fact that @xmath609 ( recall that @xmath610 ) .
analogously , in the second case , @xmath611 where @xmath612 , @xmath613 $ ] ; and in the third case @xmath614 where @xmath615 , @xmath613 $ ] .
let us now estimate the first two moments of @xmath550 . for convenience write @xmath624 $ ] .
for the first moment we obtain , using the symmetry of @xmath625 , @xmath626&=\int\limits_0^{\alpha_0}\delta_+ { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha )            + \int\limits_{-\theta}^0\delta'_+ { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha )             -\int\limits_{-\alpha_0}^{-\theta}\delta_- { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & = \int\limits_0^{\theta } 2g(x )        \big
[ \frac{g'(x)+{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 - 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha             -g'(x)^2}+     \frac{g'(x)-{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 + 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha             -g'(x)^2}\big]{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & ~~+\int\limits_{\theta}^{\alpha_0 } 2 g(x )    \big [ \frac{g'(x)+{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 - 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha             -g'(x)^2}- \frac{-g'(x)+{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 + 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha             -g'(x)^2}\big]{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & ~~+o(g''(x)g(x)^2)\\ & = \int\limits_{0}^{\alpha_0 } 2g(x )    \big [ \frac{g'(x)+{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 - 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha -g'(x)^2}+ \frac{g'(x)-{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 + 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha   -g'(x)^2}\big]{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ &
~~+o(g''(x)g(x)^2)\\ & = \int\limits_{0}^{\alpha_0 } 2g(x )   \big[\frac { 2g'(x)+4g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha -2g'(x)^3 } { ( 1 - 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha -g'(x)^2 )             ( 1 + 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha
-g'(x)^2 ) }    \big]{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha)\\ & ~~+o(g''(x)g(x)^2 ) . \end{aligned}\ ] ] the denominator in the term in square brackets in the last integrand is @xmath627 . hence @xmath628   = 2g(x)g'(x)\big(1 + 2\e[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha]\big ) + o(g''(x)g(x)^2+g'(x)^3g(x ) ) .\ ] ] then using ( a1 ) to bound the error terms , we obtain ( [ mu1 ] ) .    for the second moment
, we have , in a similar fashion , @xmath629 & = \int\limits_0^{\alpha_0}\delta_+^2 { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha )            + \int\limits_{-\theta}^0(\delta'_+)^2 { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha )             + \int\limits_{-\alpha_0}^{-\theta}\delta_-^2 { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & = \int\limits_0^{\alpha_0}\big[2g(x)\frac{g'(x)+{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha}{1 - 2g'(x )   { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha - g'(x)^2 } + o(g''(x)g(x)^2)\big]^2{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & ~~+\int\limits_{-\theta}^0 \big[2g(x)\frac{g'(x)-{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}|\alpha|}{1 + 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}|\alpha|             -g'(x)^2}+o(g''(x)g(x)^2 )       \big]^2{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & ~~+\int\limits_{-\alpha_0}^{-\theta } \big[2g(x)\frac{-g'(x)+{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}|\alpha|}{1 + 2g'(x){{\mathop{\rm tg}}}|\alpha|             -g'(x)^2 } + o(g''(x)g(x)^2 ) \big]^2{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\   & = \int\limits_0^{\alpha_0}\big[2g(x ) { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha + o ( g(x ) g'(x ) )    + o(g''(x)g(x)^2)\big]^2{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & ~~+\int\limits_{-\theta}^0 \big[2g(x ) { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha + o ( g(x ) g'(x ) ) + o(g''(x)g(x)^2 )       \big]^2{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & ~~+\int\limits_{-\alpha_0}^{-\theta } \big[2g(x ) ( -{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}\alpha ) + o(g(x ) g'(x ) ) + o(g''(x)g(x)^2 ) \big]^2{{\mathrm d}}f(\alpha ) \\ & = 2 \int\limits_{0}^{\alpha_0 } 4 g(x)^2 ( { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ) { { \mathrm d}}f(\alpha )    + o(g'(x)g(x)^2)+ o(g''(x)g(x)^3)\\ & = 4 g(x)^2\e [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] + o(g'(x)g(x)^2)+ o(g''(x)g(x)^3).\end{aligned}\ ] ] then ( [ mu2 ] ) follows , again using ( a1 ) to bound the error terms .
analogously to the case where ( [ h1 ] ) holds , we define @xmath566 , @xmath631 , @xmath632 . for @xmath633
, we have @xmath634 in the second case , when @xmath635 , @xmath636 in the third case , when @xmath637 , @xmath638    in the same way as before , we obtain @xmath639 @xmath640 and @xmath623 similar computations to before then yield the same expressions ( [ mu1 ] ) and ( [ mu2 ] ) .
lemma  [ moments_g ] is proved .
+ the next result will allow us to compare the recurrence times @xmath107 and @xmath108 .
*  first we observe that when @xmath643 is large enough ( such that @xmath644 ) , we have @xmath645 , that is , successive collisions are a.s .  on different sides of the tube .
thus , for @xmath646 , a.s . , @xmath647 now suppose that ( [ h1 ] ) holds .
then for @xmath312 large enough , under ( [ h1 ] ) , ( [ lower ] ) implies @xmath648 . in other words ,
the time between collisions for the process @xmath73 is no less than that for the process @xmath35 , and part ( i ) follows .
now suppose that ( [ h2 ] ) holds . by the triangle inequality
, we have @xmath649 thus lemma [ cota_delta ] with ( [ h2 ] ) implies that for some @xmath650 , given @xmath651 , @xmath652 for all @xmath312 large enough .
then part ( ii ) follows .
@xmath255      our approach to studying the horizontal component of the collisions process @xmath35 is to consider a rescaled version of the process in such a way that we get exactly an instance of the lamperti problem .
the key is to find a scale on which the process has uniformly bounded jumps .
define the function @xmath653 via @xmath654 .
under assumption ( a1 ) on @xmath16 , it follows that @xmath655 \frac{1}{g(x ) } , \\
h''(x ) & = - \frac{2 g'(x)}{g(x)^2 } - \frac{x g''(x)}{g(x)^2 } + \frac{2xg'(x)^2}{g(x)^3 }      = [ \gamma ( \gamma -1 ) + o(1 ) ] \frac{1}{x g(x ) } , \\
h'''(x ) & = o \big ( \frac{1}{x g(x)^2 } \big ) .\end{aligned}\ ] ]      [ zetalem3 ] suppose that ( a1 ) holds .
suppose that @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) .
then there exists @xmath225 such that for all @xmath75 and all @xmath658 @xmath659 = 1.\ ] ] also , for all @xmath75 , as @xmath660 @xmath661 & = \frac{2 \gamma ( 1-\gamma ) ( 1+\exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] ) } { y } + o(y^{-1 } ) ; \text { and}\\ \label{zeta2b }   m_2 ( y):= \exp[(\zeta_{n+1}-\zeta_n)^2\mid \zeta_n= y ] & = 4 ( 1-\gamma)^2 \exp[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] + o(1).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    * proof .
*  given @xmath662 , denote @xmath663 .
if the reflection is at angle @xmath6 , we have from taylor s theorem that as @xmath91 @xmath664 using lemma  [ cota_delta ] . by lemma  [ cota_delta ]
we have that @xmath665 , and then ( [ zeta0b ] ) is immediate .
taking expectations in ( [ def_h2 ] ) and using lemma  [ moments_g ] , we obtain @xmath666\\ & = 2 ( 1-\gamma + o(1 ) ) ( 1 + 2\e[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] ) g'(x )   + ( 2 \gamma ( \gamma-1 ) + o(1 ) ) \e[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] \frac{g(x)}{x } \\ & = \frac{2\gamma(1-\gamma ) ( 1 + \e[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha ] ) g(x)}{x } + o ( g(x)/x).\end{aligned}\ ] ] this yields ( [ zeta1b ] ) .
similarly , squaring both sides of ( [ def_h2 ] ) and taking expectations gives ( [ zeta2b ] ) .
@xmath255 + this last result , together with proposition [ unbounded ] , immediately implies the following :    [ cor1 ] suppose that @xmath16 satisfies ( a1 ) , and that @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) . then @xmath667 is a lamperti - type problem as discussed in section [ lamperti ] , satisfying ( a2 ) and ( a3 )
. moreover , ( [ limsup ] ) holds if @xmath16 satisfies ( [ h1 ] ) , and also , if @xmath6 is non - degenerate , if @xmath16 satisfies ( [ h2 ] ) .
finally , ( [ ass2 ] ) holds provided that @xmath6 is non - degenerate .
in the special case where @xmath139 , @xmath95 , so that @xmath668 , we will need a more precise version of lemma [ zetalem3 ] .
this is lemma [ zetalem ] below . not only
will this enable us to deal with the critical case in the recurrence classification ( theorem [ dim2 ] ) , it will also be crucial for our proofs of the almost - sure bounds carried out in section [ bounds ] .
[ zetalem ] suppose that @xmath14 where @xmath95 , and that @xmath6 satisfies ( [ alpha ] ) .
then for all @xmath75 , as @xmath660 @xmath669 & = \frac{2\gamma(1-\gamma)(1+\exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] ) } { y}+o(y^{-1 } ( \log y)^{-1 } ) ; \\ \label{zeta2 }   m_2(y ) : = \exp[(\zeta_{n+1}-\zeta_n)^2\mid \zeta_n = y ] & = 4(1-\gamma)^2\exp[{{\mathop{\rm tg}}}^2\alpha]+o((\log y)^{-1}).\end{aligned}\ ] ]    * proof .
*   we can apply taylor s theorem to obtain , conditional on @xmath670 , @xmath671 then taking expectations and using ( [ mu1 ] ) and ( [ mu2 ] ) we obtain ( [ zeta1 ] ) . similarly we obtain ( [ zeta2 ] ) after squaring the last displayed expression . @xmath255
+ * proof of theorem [ gen_g ] .
* under the conditions of theorem [ gen_g ] , corollary [ cor1 ] holds .
we apply lamperti s result proposition [ lmpti ] to the process @xmath672 described by lemma [ zetalem3 ] , noting that @xmath672 is null - recurrent , positive - recurrent , or transient exactly when @xmath35 is . from lemma [ zetalem3 ] , we have that @xmath673 + o(1 ) ) , \ ] ] and also @xmath674 ) - \exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] + o(1 ) \right)\nonumber\\ & = 4 ( 1-\gamma ) \left ( ( \gamma - \gamma_c ) ( 1 + 2 \exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] ) + o(1 ) \right ) , \end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath675 is given by ( [ gammac ] ) .    for part ( i ) of the theorem ,
if @xmath676 we have from ( [ f1 ] ) that there exists @xmath677 such that @xmath678 for all @xmath679 sufficiently large , and hence by proposition [ lmpti](ii ) , @xmath672 is transient .    for part ( ii ) of the theorem
, it suffices to consider the case where @xmath6 is non - degenerate , so @xmath680 .
then from ( [ f1 ] ) we have that for @xmath681 , @xmath682 for all @xmath679 sufficiently large .
also , in this case @xmath683 > 0 $ ] , so we have from ( [ f2 ] ) that @xmath684 for all @xmath679 sufficiently large . hence by proposition [ lmpti](i ) , @xmath672 is null - recurrent .
this proves theorem  [ gen_g ] for the process @xmath35 , and the statement for the process @xmath73 follows from ( [ times2 ] ) and lemma [ compare](i ) .
@xmath255 + * proof of theorem  [ dim2_erg ] . * for part ( i ) , if @xmath685 < 0 $ ] , we have from ( [ f2 ] ) that @xmath686 for some @xmath363 and all @xmath679 sufficiently large . then ( noting corollary [ cor1 ] ) it follows from proposition [ lmpti](iii ) that @xmath672 and hence @xmath35 is positive - recurrent .    for part ( ii ) , it suffices to suppose that @xmath6 is non - degenerate .
then the @xmath133 case of ( [ f1 ] ) implies that @xmath687 for all @xmath679 large enough . on the other hand , if @xmath685 > 0 $ ] , we have from ( [ f2 ] ) that @xmath688 for all @xmath679 sufficiently large
. then null - recurrence follows from proposition [ lmpti](i ) .
+ in order to complete the proof of theorem [ dim2 ] , we need a sharper form of lamperti s recurrence classification result presented in proposition [ lmpti ] .
fine results in this direction are given in @xcite .
we will only need the following consequence of theorem 3 of @xcite .
the key to the proof of our almost - sure bounds for the stochastic billiard model is to apply our almost - sure bound results from section [ lamperti ] to the rescaled process @xmath672 that we studied in lemma [ zetalem ] .
this will allow us to obtain theorems [ time1 ] and [ time2 ] .
we will then derive the results for the continuous - time process @xmath73 , theorems [ time ] and [ time3 ] , from the corresponding results for @xmath35 . recall that for @xmath75 , @xmath690 .
+ * proof of theorem [ time1 ] .
* the idea here is to apply theorem [ prop1 ] to the process @xmath672 . by lemma [ zetalem ]
, we have that ( [ f2 ] ) holds . then since @xmath691 this implies that the conditions of theorem [ prop1](i ) and ( ii ) are satisfied for the process @xmath672 ( using corollary [ cor1 ] ) .
thus for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath692 and then ( [ time1a ] ) and ( [ time1b ] ) follow , since @xmath693 .    also by lemma [ zetalem ]
, we have that ( [ f1 ] ) holds . if @xmath125 , it follows ( using corollary [ cor1 ] ) that we can apply theorem [ lamp_low ] with @xmath694 to obtain that for some @xmath151 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 , @xmath695 . then ( [ time1c ] ) follows .
@xmath255 + * proof of theorem [ time2 ] .
* this time we will apply theorems [ prop1 ] and [ prop6 ] .
it follows from lemma [ zetalem ] that @xmath696 where @xmath697 ) } { ( 1-\gamma ) \exp [ { { \mathop{\rm tg}}}^2 \alpha ] } .\ ] ] hence for @xmath168 $ ] , @xmath443 and ( using corollary [ cor1 ] ) the conditions of parts ( i ) and ( ii ) of theorem [ prop6 ] are satisfied for @xmath672 . then part ( ii ) of
the theorem follows .    on the other hand , for @xmath167 $ ]
, we have @xmath698 so that ( using corollary [ cor1 ] ) the conditions of parts ( i ) and ( ii ) of theorem [ prop1 ] are satisfied . this yields part ( i ) of the theorem , in the same way as in the proof of the corresponding results in theorem [ time1 ] .
@xmath255 + the following lemma will enable us to derive our ` infinitely - often ' lower bounds for @xmath699 from bounds for @xmath700 .
[ e0 ] suppose that @xmath95 .
suppose that there exist @xmath701 with @xmath702 , such that for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath75 @xmath703 then for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 sufficiently large , @xmath704    * proof .
*   recall the definition of the collision times @xmath705 from ( [ nudef ] ) .
we have from the triangle inequality and lemma [ cota_delta ] that for some @xmath370 , for all @xmath475 , @xmath706 thus by the upper bound in ( [ e1 ] ) , for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for some @xmath370 and all @xmath41 , @xmath707 let @xmath148 , and for @xmath708 , set @xmath709 also recall the definition of @xmath710 from ( [ ntdef ] ) .
then by ( [ d1 ] ) we have that for any @xmath148 , there exist @xmath370 and @xmath711 for which , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 large enough @xmath712 hence for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 sufficiently large @xmath713    now from ( [ d3 ] ) we have that , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 large enough @xmath714 now applying the lower bound in ( [ e1 ] ) we obtain for any @xmath148 , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 large enough @xmath715 using the definition of @xmath716 . simplifying leads to the desired result .
@xmath255 + we will use lemma [ e0 ] in the proofs of theorems [ time ] and [ time3 ] below .
we will apply the lemma taking either @xmath717 with @xmath95 or @xmath718 with @xmath719 .
note that for @xmath133 , @xmath720 so that the hypothesis @xmath721 in lemma [ e0 ] is satisfied in either case . +
* proof of theorem [ time ] . *
first of all , from theorem [ time1 ] we have that ( [ time1a ] ) and ( [ time1b ] ) hold .
thus we can apply the @xmath722 case of lemma [ e0 ] , which yields ( [ time2b ] ) .
it remains to prove ( [ time2c ] ) .
suppose that @xmath724 , so that we have transience .
first we prove the lower bound in ( [ time2c ] ) .
we have from ( [ d4 ] ) that a.s .
, for all @xmath8 large enough , @xmath725 hence from ( [ time1c ] ) we have that for some @xmath726 , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 large enough @xmath727 the final inequality using ( [ d3 ] ) and the fact that the function @xmath728 is eventually increasing in @xmath729 .
now ( [ time2c ] ) follows by the definition of @xmath716 .
now we prove the upper bound in ( [ time2c ] ) . from ( [ nudef ] ) and ( [ lower ] ) we have that @xmath730 . then using ( [ time1c ] )
we have that for some @xmath151 , a.s .
, for all but finitely many @xmath475 , @xmath731 let @xmath732 , and for @xmath733 set @xmath734 then by ( [ d5 ] ) , we have that for @xmath384 large enough , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 sufficiently large , @xmath735 now from ( [ d4 ] ) and ( [ time1a ] ) we have that for some @xmath370 , a.s .
, for all @xmath8 sufficiently large , @xmath736 now using the fact that @xmath737 a.s . , and the definition of @xmath738 , the result follows .
+ * proof of theorem [ time3 ] .
* we apply lemma [ e0 ] again . for part ( i )
, we have from part ( i ) of theorem [ time2 ] that ( [ time1a ] ) and ( [ time1b ] ) hold , so we can apply the @xmath722 case of lemma [ e0 ] to obtain ( [ time2b ] ) in this case .
h. brzis , w. rosenkrantz , and b. singer , an extension of khintchine s estimate for large deviations to a class of markov chains converging to a singular diffusion , _ comm .
pure appl .
_ * 24 * ( 1971 ) 705726 .
f. comets , s. popov , g.m .
schtz , and m. vachkovskaia ( 2007 ) billiards in a general domain with random reflections . to appear in : _
archive for rational mechanics and analysis_. available at arxiv.org as math.pr/0612799 .
a. dvoretzky and p. erds , some problems on random walk in space , in : proceedings of the second berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability , 1950 , pp .
university of california press , berkeley and los angeles , 1951 .
menshikov , i.m .
asymont , and r. iasnogorodskii , markov processes with asymptotically zero drifts , _ problems of information transmission _ * 31 * ( 1995 ) 248261 , translated from _
problemy peredachi informatsii _ * 31 * 6075 ( in russian ) .