in this pages there is an attempt to design and describe a naturalistic experiment on syntax acquisition .
specifically , we want to build a _ syntactic network _ in order to study syntax with modern methods of complex network theory .
the process is nor standard neither straightforward and deserves to be well described .
there are interesting descriptive frameworks based on networks to study syntax .
one of them is the so - called _
dependency grammar_@xcite .
there are , also , theoretical approaches using graphs .
a remarkable member is the _ word grammar_@xcite .
the approach assumed here is closer to the word - grammar , despite we develop our own criteria , as well as we consider the graph representation as a linear projection of the constituency hierarchy .
the paper is organized as follows : we firstly discuss the scope and validity of the conceptualization of syntactic relations within a network .
the core of the work is devoted to the discussion of the ( descriptive ) structural criteria to tackle the problem of annotation in early grammars . finally , a brief compendium of network measures is shown , as well as an illustrating example .
all analysis are performed over the peter corpora of childes database @xcite using the dga - annotator @xcite .
every abstraction of a natural object implies a particular conception of it in order to answer a specific question .
assuming that every abstraction implies a simplification , we have to explore , then , how different approaches can be complementary or whether some of these approaches are more fruitful than others -i.e .
, what are the core questions leading to the understanding of such phenomena .
focusing on language , research on syntax seeks to find the minimal set of rules that could generate all -and only- the potentially infinite set of sentences of a given language .
thus , the question addressed by syntax is the problem of decidability or computability of the set of possible sentences of a given language
. when dealing with language as a complex network , we have to note that statistical physics works from different perspectives : what are the global features of the dynamics of our system ? how the combinatorial space is filled ?
what is -if any- the role of constraints ?
thus , we do nt address questions concerning the structure of the inhabitants -sentences- of our system , but its global dynamics and organization .
note that the questions are different than in the case of syntax : thus , the abstraction we are working in is also different .
note , also , that we are not negating nor denying the particular features of sentence construction . simply , we work at other level of abstraction
. we are confident that information from this different level of approach should be enlightening to questions addressed on grammar itself .
if one wants to apply statistics on some syntactic phenomena , a word of caution is needed because there is a gap between the syntactic procedure and the statistical physics procedure : the former is focused on explaining almost _ every _ subtlety of sentence construction , while the latter works on averages over the largest possible set of data .
thus , a compromise has to be assumed because it is not possible to deal with every syntactic phenomena but , also , the statistics has to be built on certain criteria .
thus , the aim of this document is to present a set of descriptive criteria to identify _ structure _ in early child grammars .
this is not a theoretical reflection about the concept _ structure _ or its evolution during the process of language acquisition . with these criteria ,
we want to build up the so - called syntactic networks from early child grammars .
indeed , even though many features of the language acquisition process have been identified and well studied , there is a lack of a clear concept of what it is structured or not in early child grammars , namely , there is not a concept such as grammaticality @xcite or _ convergence _
@xcite , defined in adult grammars .
if we take the adult - grammar concept of grammaticality , we will surely reject almost all of children s productions .
but it will not be true that many of these rejected utterances are unstructured at all .    in order to overcome these limitations
, we developed a set of descriptive criteria to extract the syntactic network of different sets of the child s utterances belonging to successive time stages of the language acquisition process . as we discussed above , we present these criteria employed in the construction of the associated networks .
formally speaking , a given language , @xmath0 is composed of an arbitrary large , but finite set of lexical items @xmath1 - or alphabet , in technical words- and of a restricted set of rules and axioms , @xmath2 .
these rules describe how the elements from @xmath3 can be combined in order to _
1_. obtain sentences of @xmath4 or to _ 2_. decide if a given sequence of elements from @xmath3 is a sentence of @xmath0 or not @xcite .
syntax properties are , thus , indicators of grammatical complexity . if one intends to develop a syntax theory to decide whether a given sequence of words -namely , russian words- is a sentence of _ russian _ language , one needs to develop rules involving hierarchical and long range relations
. moreover , the set of rules must be _ generative _ , in the sense that they should involve some recursive condition to grasp the potential infinity of sentences generated by russian grammar @xcite .
thus , we can say , without any loose of generalization , that syntax works at the _ local level _ of language ] , i.e.it operates at the sentence level , no matter how long the sentence is . now , we wonder about the global profiles of syntactic relations .
note that the question we want to address is not finding the specific rules needed to generate the possible sentences of @xmath0 , but we want to take a look at the system as a whole .
this could seem bizarre when considered from the point of view of mainstream theories of syntax , but it is a common procedure in statistical physics .
global profiles can provide information about general dynamics and constraints acting over the whole system as a complex entity .
the unexpected profile given by zipf s law is an example of global behavior of language dynamics @xcite
.    a note must be added concerning the naturalistic character of this kind of experiments .
syntax has been related with competence abilities . but
statistical and naturalistic works are carried out over performance data .
thus , we are inferring the global patterns of performance by assuming some competence abilities .
networks revealed as an interesting abstraction to explore the global behavior and dynamics of complex real systems made from units and the associated relations between such units .
let s explore such abstraction for syntax relations . a network @xmath5 is defined by the nodes @xmath6 and the links @xmath7 relating the nodes @xmath6 @xcite .
these links can be directed or undirected ; we will use the directed ones , if the contrary is not indicated . to build a syntactic network
, the mapping of @xmath8 onto a graph will be straightforward for the set @xmath9 i.e. , the set of lexical items of @xmath8 will be the set of nodes of @xmath10 .
the mapping from @xmath2 to @xmath7 is not so obvious and needs further considerations .
as we discussed above , the syntactic rules needed to generate any natural language revealed considerable degree of complexity .
thus , it is clear that the statistical treatment employed here is an approximation .
modern syntax is based on recursive operations of _ merge _ and _ move _ @xcite .
such operations lead the syntactic derivations to display hierarchies and long range relations .
these are features that can not be captured explicitly by a descriptive framework based on linear relations among lexical items -a network approach .
but we are approaching the language structure from the point of view of statistical physics : we want to capture the global patterns of the system , thus we can not specify _ all _ the local properties .
this is contrary to the procedure employed in the ising models of ferromagnetism , despite the success of this approach is universally acknowledged .
thus we have to decide what is the most essential structure in a syntactic derivation .
we assume that the most fundamental thing one can say from the syntactic point of view about a sentence is its _
constituent structure_.    constituent structure can be captured by linear relations . in the following ,
we define an exact mapping from a hierarchical binary tree to a graph , an entity made of binary relations ( see figure ( [ grafets ] ) ) :    1 .
find the basic syntactic structure of constituents without labels nor internal operations , with clear distinctions of complements and the head in every phrase .
detect the verbs in finite forms .
2 .   trace an arc from the complement to the head of the phrase .
if the complement of a given phrase is also a phrase , trace and arc from the head of the internal phrase to the head of the external phrase .
we want to recover the merging order .
3 .   the head will be the semantically most relevant item .
the verbs in finite forms are the head of the sentence .    with the above criteria
, we make an attempt to manage data with the less aggressive criteria .
moreover , these assumptions do nt constrain us to one or other linguistic school and grasp reasonably with the observed syntactic development of children .    with this method
, we do not restrict our set of sentences to the one generated by finite combinatorics .
we allow our sentence to be arbitrary long .
thus , our model is only finite because real data is finite in nature , but it does nt negate the theoretical possibility of infinite generativity , a property expected for any approach of syntax @xcite .
moreover , the relevance of the statistical physics properties generally is found in systems asymptotically large .
chi : [ telephone go right here ] ( ... ) + chi : xxx [ need it ] [ my need it ] ( ... ) + chi : xxx ( ... ) + chi : [ put in there ] +   +   + + + + +   + right@xmath11there@xmath11go@xmath12telephone+ it@xmath11need@xmath12my+in@xmath11there@xmath11put +   +        syntactic networks can be built by other procedures .
dependency syntax @xcite has been used in other works @xcite . in such an approximation ,
syntactic networks have been built up by assuming syntactic relations as dependency relations among lexical items .
dependency grammar generates a graph to describe the sentence structure and it is the reason why it is interesting to build networks .
the mechanism to build large nets is straightforward .
studies on language acquisition can be divided into two main types : _ experimental _ and _ naturalistic_. the experimental ones are focused on child s response to well - established situations in order to obtain data of some specific trait .
naturalistic studies , at the other hand , are based on child s free speech corpora .
these corpora can be extracted , for example , from a recorded session where the child speaks with adults spontaneously .
@xcite . our study is clearly naturalistic , and this label takes here its whole meaning , because the procedures to build up _ biological _ networks , for example , are conceptually , the same .
data has been extracted from the well - known _ childes database _ @xcite .
the chosen corpus is the _ peter _
corpus , from bloom 1970 .
we choose this data for many reasons : 1 ) time intervals are regular ( about 2 or 3 weeks ) .
2 ) extension of the corpora can be considered large enough to seize global properties , taking into account the intrinsic small size of the system .
there is a little exception in corpus 2 , which is , by far , the smallest one .
fortunately , this corpus does not seem to belong to a key stage in grammar evolution .
3 ) the acquisition stages of peter seem to be the standard ones observed in language acquisition .
thus , it is reasonable to think that our results will not be biased to strange deviations of the particular case study .
working data includes the 11th first corpora of peter s 20 corpora .
the age period goes from 1 year and 9 months to 2 year and 4 months . as we said above
, the aim of the study is to observe whether and to what extent syntactic networks can provide information on the process of language acquisition . the so - called _ syntactic spurt _ ( @xcite ) , which appears later than the _ lexical spurt _ , is clearly observable in the chosen corpora .
thus , we manage data that begins when the lexical spurt has already taken place and ends when syntactic structures of child s productions are complex enough to be compared with the adult ones . this does not exclude the possibility of more abrupt changes in more advanced acquisition stages , but we stop our analysis here .
.age of peter in successive corpora ( * years;months.days * ) .
data from childes database @xcite [ cols="^,^,^,^,^",options="header " , ]     @xmath13    the case concerning _ a _ , the schwa , will receive a particular attention below .
some onomatopoeia appear together with its corresponding lexical item .
to analyze them , we assume onomatopoeia to be nonexistent .
take , for example : @xmath13    * peter 9*_i want ta write the choo choo train @xmath14 i want ta write the train _    @xmath13 considerations related to other non - trivial interpretations , such as the role of _ ta _ , are extensively developed in the following lines .    in addition , and following the enumeration of non - accepted productions , we find the general case where no structure is identified in a production . in this situation , we consider the utterance as a string of isolated lexical items .
consequently , no links but only nodes corresponding to the lexical items are added to the graph .
more attention has to be paid to imitations .
the reason to consider imitations as unacceptable productions is that we have no confidence that such string is identified as a structured one or , simply , as a single lexical element .
imitations are identified by analyzing the discursive context
. some utterances of surprising complexity for its corresponding stage are produced after an _ untranscribed adult conversation _ : we cautiously removed from the graph such contributions . in peter 5 corpus , _ i ca nt see it _ is produced after an adult conversation and it is , by far , the most complex production of this corpus .
it strongly suggests that this is an imitation from something said in such untranscribed adult conversation .
as we stated above , structured productions and lexical items are taken into account .
now we state another assumption : if in the whole utterance we can not find global structure but there are some structured strings , then we take these structured strings separately , ( see figure [ grafets ] ) .      in the pre - functional stage ( identified in our data until corpus
peter 6 ) there appear a lot of utterances where only thematic relations seem to be considered by the syntactic system of the child .
thematic relations are fundamental at the syntactic level , and their appearance indicates presence of sub - categorization mechanisms in child grammar .
no traces of more complex structure -like agreement- is found in this early stage of acquisition .
we consider as syntactic relations the thematic relations between verb and arguments .
moreover , subject elision is usual , due mainly to the facts that 1)utterances are in imperative mode or 2)there is no fixation yet of parametric variation associated to the explicit presence of subject in english .
productions of this kind are : @xmath13    * peter 5 * _ open box _ , instead of _ open the box _
, ( the determiner is missing . )
@xmath13    * peter 5 * _ wheel walk _ instead of _
the wheel walks _ , ( 3-singular english agreement is missing ) @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ two truck _ instead of _ two trucks _ , ( no plural agreement )    @xmath13    this leads to the logical conclusion that productions like _ open the _ will not be accepted .
the reason is clear : if we assume thematic relations as the basic building blocks of child syntax , the non - presence of the semantically required argument but its determiner is not enough to define any relation .
relations between verbal head and functional words are specifically considered in phrasal verbs .
its isolated production is considered a structured utterance .
several reasons support our choice : 1 ) their intrinsic complex nature , 2 ) we can not conclude that there are lexicalized imitations because , in adult speech , phrasal verbs usually are _ broken _ by a noun or determiner phrase : @xmath13    _ turn [ the wheel]@xmath15 out_. @xmath13      semantically vacuous predications ( those which involve the _ to be _ verb ) are often produced without realization the verb .
we argued that missing arguments or lack of agreement in a production could be not the only reasons to conclude that there is not any structure in child utterances .
this was justified because strong semantically items were present in discussed productions .
the case of copulative constructions will be treated close to the ones involving missing functional words . in this case , no presence of the verb does not motivate the consideration of non - structured production .
an interesting production is : @xmath13    * peter 5 * _ wheels mine _ instead of _ * the * wheels * are * mine _
@xmath13 in this case we have a predication _ mine _ from something _
wheels_. formally , _ are _ is a semantic link between predication and the element from which something is predicated @xcite .
so the missing of the _ to be _ verb could be considered analogous to the missing of a functional particle .
the same situation arises from : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ that my pen _
@xmath13 usually , when inflectional morphology appears , some infinite forms are present without the finite form of the _ to be _ verb .
this is the case of some present continuous utterances such as : @xmath13    * peter 8 * _ i writting
_    @xmath13 this case should be treated as the above case : there is some predication with semantic structure .
just the opposite is also found : presence of the _ to be _ verb with an infinitive or finite form : @xmath13    * peter 8 * _ i m write too
_    @xmath13 in this case , we could assume that the child is acquiring inflectional morphology and that this utterance is a present continuous one without inflection .
in the other hand , we could consider that _
m _ has not a role in the sentence and thus , this can be treated as a single finite sentence _
i write too_.    analogously , @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ i m do it _    or    * peter 6 * _ cars goes away _
@xmath13 are treated as single finite sentences : _
i do it _ and _ the cars go away _    some lexicalized phrases in adult language , such as _ back seat _ or _ thank you _ , have been considered as a complex structures .
the reason is to be coherent : if we assume that _ fix it _ is clearly an imperative structured sentence , at this stages of acquisition there is no reason to think that _ back seat _ or _
thank you _ have to be considered differently .
moreover , this interpretation is also coherent with the one developed for phrasal verbs .
a special case of imitations involving the _ to be _ verb will be accepted .
these imitations involve some _ adaptation _ of adult syntax to the syntax in which the child is competent .
an example should be : @xmath13    * ( peter 6 ) *    * adult * : _ is that a truck ? _ @xmath13    * child*@xmath16 : _ that s a truck ?
_ @xmath13
* child*@xmath17 : _ that a truck ? _
@xmath13    in this example , adult production involve an interrogative sentence with subject inversion . the first imitation ( _ child_@xmath16 ) retains all the lexical items but the sentence is translated as interrogative without subject inversion . in the second successive imitation ( _ child_@xmath17 ) the verb is missing .
but the elements to define a predication are still at work -with a _ schwa _ as a determiner , suggesting that the child is entering into the functional stage .      during the acquisition process ,
extension of meaning is subject to variations . to know which is the intrinsic nature of these changes is not our aim , but we have to manage such situations .
thus , we find utterances where the child uses in the _ wrong _ way some lexical item that could be related semantically with the _ right _ lexical item . as an example : @xmath13    * peter 5 * _ more screwdriver _
@xmath13 which could , checking the context , be properly replaced by constituents or lexical items with related meanings : @xmath13    _ another screwdriver _
@xmath13 or    _ screw it again _
@xmath13 or    _ screw it more _ ( or _ harder _ ... )    @xmath13 in the first case , we could consider that the child made some semantic extension of the word _
more _ and it has enough traces to define a syntactic relation . but context can lead us to a second or third interpretation . generally , if there is a great ambiguity we reject such utterances as structured ones .
in this case , we should not consider any syntactic structure .
thus , we do nt define any relation in productions such as : @xmath13    * peter 5 * _ screwdriver help _ @xmath13
* peter 5 * _ more [ fix it]@xmath18 _ ( we do nt define any relation between    @xmath19_more _ and the sd _ fix it _ )    @xmath13 the semantics of the productions are intuitive , but is hard to justify clearly some kind of syntactic dependency .
strings displaying mistakes in the use of personal pronouns and possessives have considered as structured . generally , we could associate such mistakes to the absence or weakness of case system .
but many productions , as we reported above , have structure without any trace of case assignation .
examples of this kind of utterances are : @xmath13    * peter 5 * _ my fix it_@xmath20instead of _ i fix it _ @xmath13    * peter 8 * _ me write_@xmath21 instead of _ i write _
@xmath13    this assumption is reinforced by realizing that , in some cases , a production with wrong pronoun is repeated correctly without any conversational pause : @xmath13    * peter 8 * _ me found it ( ... ) i find it _ @xmath13
this situation can not be confused with the missing of the _ to be _ verb such in the case of _ wheels mine_. this case has to be considered as above mentioned when dealing with missing _ to be _ verb structures .      in early corpora ( 1 - 4 )
child productions display very poor structures .
this is the so - called _ pre - functional _ stage , where no functional words appear in structured productions . beyond this point , some lexical elements -we are mainly talking about the @xmath22 , the _
schwa_- seem to act as a _ proto_functional particles . whether this schwa has a phonological or functional - syntactic character is an open question @xcite .
some authors related the presence of these items as one step to combinatorial speech @xcite , but they realized that , in early stages , the role of these items is more related to phonological processes of language acquisition , without any functional or structural role , at the syntactic level .
other authors such as veneziano @xmath23 sinclair `` _ linked these phenomena more specifically to the child s development of grammatical morphemes considering them as a sort of an intermediate form on the way to grammatical morphemes . _ '' @xcitepp 463 . roughly speaking
, we can say that the core of this reasoning is rooted in the idea that the role of such items is dynamic , going at very first stages as _ filler syllabes _ without any syntactic role and acquiring grammatical features during the process to end as functional particles , with specific syntactic role .
the lack of consensus around a topic that seems to be crucial in syntactic acquisition theorizations forces us to be really cautious in interpreting such items .
furthermore , functional words such @xmath22 are strongly candidates to be the hubs in a fully developed syntactic network .
hub are the most connected nodes on a network , being , thus core pieces in network organization .
every candidate belonging to the set of functional particles is specially analyzed in order to discard simple phonological phenomena .
thus , for every occurrence of such items there will be an individual decision , taking in account the context and with the framework defined by veneziano @xmath23 sinclair .
sinclair s study , the chosen language is french , but we take as general some conclusions that seem to coincide with the observed phenomena in english acquisition ]    specifically , we considered that sometimes the _ schwa _ plays a functional role .
it is reasonable to assume , thus , that sometimes the _ schwa _ is substituting a specific functional particle . in this cases
we assume that the _ schwa _ acts within the syntactic structure as the substituted particle .
several examples can illustrate such reasoning : @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ light * a * hall _ @xmath13
* peter 6 * _ light in * a * hall _ @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ look * a * people
_ @xmath13    in this case
, it seems that _ a _ substitutes _ the_. _ * a * _ should be treated as a determiner .
this is a very difficult choice , because purely phonological interpretation could be enough to justify the presence , specially in the third case .
sometimes choice is really ambiguous .
take for example : @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ there * a * new one _ @xmath13    such a case _ * a * _ could be easily interpreted as a pure phonological phenomena .
but if we consider the vacuous semantic nature of the _ to be _ verb , we could understand these occurrences as protofunctionals .
we removed these most ambiguous cases .
we also rejected as unstructured utterances productions involving confuse sequences of functional particles as : @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ will an a in there _ @xmath13    any interpretation is really confusing .
there are cases where the presence of the _ * a * _ is clearly purely phonological .
for example : @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ more get * a * more _
@xmath13    * peter 6 * _ * a * ride a horsie _ @xmath13    * peter 5*_*a * this thumb _
@xmath13    * peter 7 * _ hmmm my a _
@xmath13    beyond the non - definition of personal pronouns due to the weakness of the case system , we find the pronoun _
i _ as an _ a _ : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ a want milk _ @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ a want ta get out _ @xmath13    an interesting sequence of that reinforces our considerations
is : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ a put it on ( ... ) my put it on _
@xmath13    finally , it is interesting to note the presence of elements that are , to some extent , a mixing between _ a _ and _ to _ : _ ta_. the occurrence of this particle is rare and located explicitly at the very beginning of the funcional stage .
the remarkable fact lies on the evidence that is located where it should be the preposition _ to_. this could imply that in fact there is a transition from a pure phonological role to a functional one .
_ a @xmath14 ta @xmath14 to _ @xmath13    thus , we interpret _ ta _ as an intermediate stage but , due to its location within the sentence and the context , we assume it behaves as a preposition : @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ [ have [ ta [ screw it]]@xmath24 _ @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ [ have[ta [ screw it]]@xmath24 _ @xmath13
the emergence of english syntax is strongly tied to the emergence of functional particles .
this is the reason why we decided to take into account this kind of lexical components : despite almost every utterance involving such items can be object of many considerations , there are enough motivation to try to define a descriptive criteria to deal with them .
it is usual to find , at the beginning of the functional stage , that a verb that sub - categorizes , for example , a prepositional phrase , display two successive prepositions : @xmath13    * peter 6 * _ look * at in * there _ @xmath13    to manage this kind of productions we assumed , first , that these imply that the child conceives a syntactic structure that involves prepositional phrases . following this reasoning , we make the following structural description : @xmath13    _ look * at in * there _ @xmath14 _ [ look [ at there]@xmath24 _
@xmath13    in that case , _ in _ is interpreted as an independent lexical item .
not only prepositions are involved in this duplication phenomena , but also determiners : @xmath13    * peter 9 * _ one that screwdriver _ @xmath13    interpretation rules out _
one _ as a member of any structure , leading the sd _ [ that screwdriver]@xmath15 _ alone .
a situation analogous to famous one described by braine ( p.160 - 161 ) @xcite is : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ get * another * one paper @xmath14 get another paper _ @xmath13    thus , as above , determiner duplication is not considered in the structural analysis .      by this name ,
we designate the lexical items that are present in a conversational framework but can not be explicitly interpreted as members of some syntactic structure , such as _ hello _ , or_ok_. the reason to include these elements as connected to the network is due mainly because their are produced in non - arbitrary context .
thus , we assume that they linked to the first element of the sentence they precede : @xmath13    * peter 5 * _ ok patsy _
@xmath13    obviously , previous reasons are at work when dealing with such items .
thus , the conversational context has to be analyzed to interpret these items .
for example , in the following situation , _
bye _ has not been considered as a member of any structure .
the reason is that it is produced among analogous expressions , leading it to interpret more in a pragmatic sense : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ see you , bye , see you _
@xmath13    sequences of numbers or other elements produced as a list are not considered as members of any structure : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ one two three ... _
@xmath13    sometimes , personal nouns are produced by the child to demand attention from adult people . in these situations ,
we do not accept them as a members of structured sentences .
some residual cases to be commented are the ones related with strings of nouns : @xmath13    * peter 9 * _ piece tape ... _
@xmath13    which are clearly unstructured , if conversational context does not conspire in the other way . sequences like @xmath13    * peter 9 * _ off on tv ... _
@xmath13    are ruled out as structured ones because any structure proposal leads us to a certainly bizarre sentence in terms of meaning and because there is a lack of many elements that can act as clues to find some structure .
thus , they are considered as isolated lexical items : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ * an * jenny _
@xmath13      when the functional stage is being consolidated , we find more complex structures . among others , interrogatives involving subject inversion or negation structures .
negation structures sometimes imply the presence of the auxiliary _ to do _ are produced using the negative particle alone : @xmath13    * peter 7 * * no * _ put it here _
@xmath13    this context suggests us that _ no _ could be replacing the auxiliary form _ dont_. _
do nt put it here _ is its grammatical counterpart .
nevertheless , we consider _ no _ as replacing _ do nt _ and , thus , as a member of a bigger syntactically structures utterance .
obviously , as we said above , context has to rule out interpretations such as _ * no * , put it here_. analogous structures can be : @xmath13    * peter 7 * _ * no * ride a bike _
there are other situations where we considered suitable not to consider _ no _ as a member of any structure : @xmath13    * peter 8 * _ in the bag * no * _
@xmath13    we can not conclude that there is a syntactic relation among the negation operator and some other lexical item of the string .
maybe a parametric @xcite hypotheses could save this production by suggesting that the location of the negation operator within the structure may be a parametric feature .
despite interesting , we choose the rule these productions out for reliability purposes .
furthermore , at the same time , there are productions like : @xmath13    * peter 9 * _ * no * in this box _
@xmath13    suggesting that the child _ knows _ the ordering of negation structures in english .
in the latter case , as before , we considered not risky to identify _ no _ as a member of a bigger structures sentence .
previous set of criteria enables us :    1 .   to identify and characterize syntactic structures in early child language .
2 .   to project them into word - word dependencies in order to annotate the corpus .    the corpora is annotated _ by hand_. this enables us to be accurate and to manage ambiguous situations .
the program used to perform the annotation is the so - called * dependency grammar annotator * ( dga annotator ) .
this program was developed by marius popescu @xcite from the university of bucaresti and has a nice and easy interface .
it works with xml files , whose internal structure will be described in the example of the last section .
with these criteria in hand , we are ready to perform a first analysis of grammar complexity .
such an analysis is closed to the classical mlu .
what we can compute , now is the average size of syntactic structures .
thus , in a production , we can , for example , find two syntactically unrelated structures@xmath26 and @xmath27
. the number of lexical items of these structures will be its sizes @xmath28 and @xmath29 .
such an utterance will contribute to the computation of @xmath25 with two structures .
for example , in @xmath13    _ look * at in * that _
@xmath13    we have two structures :    @xmath30[look , [ at , that ] ] @xmath31    @xmath32 in @xmath33    @xmath34    ( note that single words are considered as size-@xmath35 structures ) to obtain @xmath25 the average is computed over all utterances .
such a measure will provide us clues to decide whether the size of productions has information about grammatical complexity .
its evolution can be related with working memory limitations .
once we analyzed a conversation , we can build the network .
the process is as follows .
due to the nature of our analysis , we will have a collection of words , which define the set @xmath36 :    @xmath37    this define the set of nodes of our network . if , during the conversation , we find some structure where two words @xmath38 are related syntactically -using the above criteria!- we say that @xmath39 and that there is a link @xmath40 .
@xmath41    remark that :    all the words and links only appear once a time .
this enables us to separate -as far as possible- some contextual deviations from the specific conversations .
also , there can be many isolated nodes .
finally , we compute the adjacency matrix @xmath42 . this matrix is the representation of the graph and the abstract object where all computations of graph complexity are performed .
if the child produced @xmath43 different words during the conversation , the size of this matrix will be , obviously @xmath44 .
the adjacency matrix of the directed graph will be :    @xmath45    if we consider the undirected version of this graph , @xmath46 will be defined as :    @xmath47    note that @xmath46 is symmetrical , whereas @xmath42 it is not .
now we are ready to perform an exhaustive analysis of network complexity .
a first and fundamental question we find when dealing with such measures is whether the net is made of a large number or small , isolated graphs or if it displays a clearly differentiated giant connected component ( gcc ) that contains most of the connected words -i.e .
words syntactically active in some production .
the number of words contained on such a component or its relative size are interesting statistical indicators . strikingly , from the very beginning , child s syntactic graphs display a clear and very differentiated gcc . for mathematical purposes , we will use the matrix representation of the connectivity pattern of the gcc , the so - called _ adjacency matrix_. an element of such a matrix is @xmath48 if there exists a link among the words @xmath49 and
@xmath50 and @xmath51 otherwise . if the contrary is not indicated , -we will compute the following measures over the gcc of our graphs .
the number of links ( or _ degree _ ) @xmath52 of a given word @xmath53 gives a measure of the number of ( syntactic ) relations existing between a word and its neighbors .
the simplest global measure that can be defined on @xmath54 is the average degree @xmath55 . for the @xmath56-th corpus
, it will be defined as    @xmath57    where @xmath58 indicates the number of words present in the @xmath56-th corpus .
this number is known to increase through acquisition in a steady manner .
this and other measures are computed on the largest component of the graph .    beyond the average degree , two basic measures can be used to characterize the graph structure of the gcc of the @xmath56-th corpus .
these are the average path length ( @xmath59 ) and the clustering coefficient ( @xmath60 ) .
the first is defined as @xmath61 over all pairs @xmath62 , where @xmath63 indicates the length of the shortest path between two nodes .
roughly speaking , a short path length means that it is easy to reach a given word @xmath64 starting from another arbitrary word @xmath65 .
the second is defined as the probability that two vertices ( e.g. words ) that are neighbors of a given vertex are neighbors of each other . in order to compute the clustering ,
we define for each word @xmath66 a neighborhood @xmath67 . each word @xmath68 has been syntactically linked ( via the above defined projection ) at least once with @xmath66 in some sentence .
the words in @xmath67 can also be linked among them , and it is what the clustering coefficient evaluates .
the clustering @xmath69 of this set is defined as    @xmath70    and the average clustering of the gcc concerning the @xmath56-th corpus is simply @xmath71 .
the clustering @xmath72 provides a measure of the likelihood of having triangles in the graph . concerning the average path length , for random graphs with poissonian structure we have    @xmath73\over \log \left [ z_2 /z_1\right ] } \ ] ]    being @xmath74 the average number of neighbors at distance @xmath43 . for poissonian graphs , where @xmath75 and @xmath76 , we have the following approximation : @xmath77
it is said that a network is a _ small - world _
when @xmath78 ( and clearly @xmath79 ) .
the key difference between a poissonian network and a real network is often @xmath80 @xcite .
another quantity of interest is the degree of affinity among nodes with the same connectivity . in this way , the behavior of hubs is specially relevant , as well as they organize the overall structure of the net .
a network is said to be _ assortative _ if hubs tend to be connected among them .
at the other side , a network is said to be _ dissassortative _ if hubs tend to avoid connections among them .
language networks at different scales display a high degree of dissassortativeness @xcite . to quantify the degree of assortativeness
, we use the so - called pearson s coefficient for nets @xcite :    @xmath81    where @xmath82 and @xmath83 are the degrees of the edges at the ends of the @xmath84th edge with @xmath85 , @xmath86 and being @xmath87 the number of edges .
if @xmath88 the net is dissassortative , whereas if @xmath89 the net is assortative .
below we have a fragment of the conversation transcribed in the corpus _
peter 7_. we will detail the analysis that we perform .
firstly , we show the source corpus .
we follow by selecting peter s productions . after
that we select the structures and analyze this structures and we tag them .
we finish by computing @xmath90 of this fraction of text and by showing the obtained net .
pat : hey pete that s a nice new telephone looks like it must do@xmath13 @xmath91 everything it must ring and talk and .@xmath13 % mor : co|hey n : prop|pete pro : dem|that v|be @xmath23 3s det|a adj|nice adj|new
n|telephone@xmath13 @xmath91 n|look - pl v|like pro|it v : aux|must v|do pro : indef|everything pro|it v : aux|must @xmath13 @xmath91 v|ring conj : coo|and n|talk conj : coo|and .
@xmath13 % exp : peter has a new toy telephone on table next to him@xmath13 % com : < bef > untranscribed adult conversation@xmath13 * chi : xxx telephone go right there .@xmath13
% mor : unk|xxx n|telephone v|go adv|right adv : loc|there .
@xmath13 % act : < bef > reaches out to lift phone receiver , pointing to place where@xmath13 @xmath91 wire should connect receiver and telephone@xmath13 * mot : the wire .@xmath13
% mor : det|the n|wire . @xmath13
* pat : oh < the @xmath23 te > [ // ] the wire s gone ?
@xmath13 % mor : co|oh det|the n|wire v : aux|be @xmath23 3s v|go @xmath23 perf ?
@xmath13 % com : < aft > untranscribed adult conversation@xmath13 * chi : xxx need it my need it xxx .@xmath13 % mor : unk|xxx v|need pro|it pro : poss : det|my
n|need pro|it unk|xxx .@xmath13 % act : < aft > goes to his room on mother s suggestion , returns with wire@xmath13 * chi : xxx .@xmath13 % mor : unk|xxx .
@xmath13 * pat : uhhuh .@xmath13 % mor : co|uhhuh .
@xmath13 * loi : why do nt you bring your telephone down here peter ?
@xmath13 % mor : adv : wh|why v : aux|do neg|not pro|you v|bring pro : poss : det|your
n|telephone @xmath13 @xmath91 adv|down adv : loc|here
n : prop|peter ? @xmath13 * loi : why do nt you put it on the floor ?
@xmath13 % mor : adv : wh|why v : aux|do neg|not pro|you v|put @xmath23 zero pro|it prep|on det|the n|floor ?
@xmath13 % act : < aft > peter puts it on floor < aft > peter is trying to attack `` wire''@xmath13 @xmath91 to phone and receiver@xmath13 % com : < aft > untranscribed adult conversation@xmath13 * loi : what re you doing ?
@xmath13 % mor : pro : wh|what v|be @xmath23 pres pro|you part|do - prog ? @xmath13
* chi : 0 .@xmath13 % act : < aft > peter goes to hall closet , tries to open it@xmath13 * mot : what do you need ?
% mor : pro : wh|what v|do pro|you
v|need ? @xmath13 * chi : xxx .@xmath13 % mor : unk|xxx .@xmath13 ( ... ) @xmath13 * chi : put in there .@xmath13 % mor : v|put @xmath23 zero prep|in adv : loc|there . @xmath13 % act : attaching wire to phone@xmath13 * loi : ok it s all fixed oops it was out all fixed there .@xmath13
% mor : co|ok pro|it v|be @xmath233s qn|all part|fix - perf co|oops pro|it v|be @xmath23 past @xmath23 13s @xmath13 @xmath91
adv|out qn|all v|fix - past adv : loc|there .
@xmath13      to work with the dga annotator , we need , firstly , to extract the child s productions . to do this
, we programmed a routine in perl language able to extract child s productions .
below there is a simple pseudocode as a sample : @xmath13    ` file = peter`@xmath92    ` for(i=5 ; i<=longfile ; i++ ) `    @xmath93    ` if(file[i]=  /peter/ ) `    @xmath93    ` j = j+1 ; `    ` peter[j]= file[i ] ; `    @xmath94    @xmath94    @xmath13 ` for(i=0 ; i<=longfile ; i++ ) `    @xmath93    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]= tr/*peter:/ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/./ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/,/ / ; `    @xmath95
` @peter[i]=   tr/;/ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/:/ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/!/ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/</ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/>/ / ; `    @xmath95
` @peter[i]=   tr/?/ / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr// / ; `    @xmath95 ` @peter[i]=   tr/*/ / ; `    @xmath94 @xmath13
if we apply the above algorithm to the sample of text of the example , we obtain : @xmath13    xxx telephone go right there    xxx need it my need it xxx    xxx    0    xxx    put in there      further we need to provide the obtained strings of words with a xml format , in order to manage them with the dga annotator .
below we have an example of the string _ put in there_. @xmath13    @xmath96`?xml version=1.0 encoding = iso-8859 - 1`@xmath97    @xmath96`!doctype dgadoc system dga.dtd`@xmath97    @xmath96`dgadoc`@xmath97    @xmath96`s`@xmath97    @xmath96`tok`@xmath97    @xmath98`orth`@xmath97`put`@xmath96`/orth`@xmath97    @xmath98`ordno`@xmath97`1`@xmath96`/ordno`@xmath97    @xmath96`/tok`@xmath97    @xmath96`tok`@xmath97    @xmath98`orth`@xmath97`in`@xmath96`/orth`@xmath97    @xmath98`ordno`@xmath97`2`@xmath96`/ordno`@xmath97    @xmath96`/tok`@xmath97    @xmath96`tok`@xmath97    @xmath98`orth`@xmath97`there`@xmath96`/orth`@xmath97    @xmath98`ordno`@xmath97`3`@xmath96`/ordno`@xmath97    @xmath96`/tok`@xmath97    @xmath96`/s`@xmath97    @xmath96`/dgadoc`@xmath97 @xmath13          we reject @xmath100 and @xmath101 as lexical items and proceed to annotate with the dga anotator .
once the corpus is annotated ( with the criteria developed through the paper ! ) we generate the set of words .
this can be done by sampling the xml file once annotated by using a routine close to the ones shown above ( perl or python are the ideal languages ) . to compute graph parameters and more mathematical artifacts , it is a good choice to use a _ stronger _ language , such as c or c++ .
@xmath102    and the analysis is , roughly speaking :    @xmath103_{pp}]_{vp}]_{tp}}\;\;|s_1|=4\ ] ]    @xmath104_{vp}}\;\;|s_2|=2\ ] ]    @xmath105_{vp}]_{tp}}\;\;s_3=3\ ] ]    @xmath106_{pp}]_{vp}}\;\;s_4=3\ ] ]    thus , we can compute @xmath107 :    @xmath108    and , following the criteria developed above , we can define @xmath109    @xmath110    we have built the graph .
my indebtedness for carlos rodrguez - caso for his ideas and his patient advising in teaching perl .
i also want to acknowledge harold fellermann for his help in programming python routines , andreea munteanu for the careful reading of the manuscript and barbara soriano for its useful comments on language acquisition process .
my indebtness , also , to ricard v. sol and sergi valverde as well as this work is a part of a bigger work where their ideas have been illuminating .
finally , i d like to acknowledge ramon ferrer i cancho for his contributions at the beginning of the work .
ferrer i cancho , r. ( 2005 ) the structure of syntactic dependency networks : insights from recent advances in network theory . in _ the problems of quantitative linguistics _ , altmann , g. , levickij , v. @xmath23 perebyinis , v. ( eds . ) .
chernivtsi : ruta . pp . 60 - 75 .


the continuous - time random walks ( ctrws ) @xcite present sufficiently wide and general class of random walks , describing random motions of particles , when both the waiting ( sojourn ) time between successive jumps and the jump length ( including its direction ) are generally coupled random variables .
the ctrws have been widely applied in building up models of anomalous diffusion and transport in physics @xcite ( to name a few ) and biology @xcite , and in economical problems @xcite .    in their original form
@xcite the ctrws describe random walks , or , more precisely , jumps , on lattices when only the waiting time is a random variable . in the general case of the uncoupled ctrws both waiting time and jump length
are independent random variables , this leads to the jump model of the ctrws .
the kinetic model of random walks , often called random flights , originates from the pearson  rayleigh random walks @xcite . in this model
the particle moves with constant velocity for a random time along straight lines between points where it changes randomly the direction of movement .
the random flights can be considered both in the framework of the generalized linear transport ( kinetic ) equation @xcite and in the framework of the ctrws , when the waiting time and jump length are coupled random variables .
the latter is the velocity or velocity - jump model of the ctrws @xcite .
the jump model of the ctrws has gained high popularity due to its greater simplicity than the kinetic ( velocity - jump ) model . however , in the jump model the waiting time can generally be arbitrarily small or / and the jump length can be arbitrary long ( levy flights ) , and , therefore , a walking particle can move with infinite velocity .
thus , the jump model may , in contrast to the kinetic one , violate the principle of causality .
this is similar to the classic _ diffusion paradox _
@xcite related to the conventional diffusion equation , which is widely used for approximate macroscopic description of nonanomalous diffusion and brownian motion .
the difference is that in classic einstein s model of brownian motion @xcite , leading to the diffusion equation , the particle moves with finite velocity .
in fact einstein s model is nothing but the symmetric bernoulli random walk @xcite , which can be considered as a degenerate case of the ctrws in the frameworks of both the jump and kinetic models .
the telegraph equation @xcite was proposed as an alternative to the diffusion equation .
in contrast to the latter , which is parabolic , the telegraph equation is hyperbolic , providing the finite speed of signal propagation .
two- and three - dimensional telegraph equations meet some formal problems since green s functions can become negative @xcite .
though in the case of thermal conduction this can be fixed by imposing restrictions on the heat flux @xcite .
yet the one - dimensional telegraph equation avoids the diffusion paradox and provides better model for nonanomalous diffusion than the one - dimensional diffusion equation .
in ref.@xcite the authors discussed microscopic models of the telegraph equation . aside from the kinetic model they proposed another model based on uncoupled ctrws with the waiting time distributed according to the gamma law @xmath1 and the jump length having the finite second moment .
the authors called the ctrws with the gamma - distributed waiting time delayed ctrws ( dctrws ) .
similar arguments were used in ref.@xcite when deriving the telegraph equation with reaction . in ref.@xcite the telegraph equation with reaction was derived formally from the ctrw with exponentially distributed waiting time , and later , in ref.@xcite ,  from the ctrw with a general waiting time .
earlier , the telegraph equation was derived in ref.@xcite from uncoupled ctrws with the waiting time having more general distribution than the gamma law .
we call these ctrws for brevity also delayed ctrws ( dctrws ) .
the conclusions that the dctrws simulates the telegraph equation at the microscopic level are strange .
indeed , the telegraph equation describes phenomena with finite propagation speed , while the particle in the dctrws may move with infinite velocity , i.e. , the dctrws do not reflect the principal peculiarity of the telegraph equation . in spite of this discrepancy
, one may believe that the telegraph equation still gives a precise approximation to the dctrws .    in this paper
we investigate how accurate are the approximations to the dctrws provided by the telegraph equation .
we show that the diffusion equation , being the correct limit of the dctrws , gives better approximations to the dctrws than the telegraph equation .
one can conclude , therefore , that the dctrws can not be a model for the telegraph equation at microscopic level .
the rest of the paper is organized as follows . in section  [ sec : ctrw ] we recall some facts concerning the uncoupled ctrws . section  [ sec : teleapprox ] shows how the telegraph equation was derived from the dctrws in ref.@xcite .
the asymptotic behaviour of the dctrws is discussed in section  [ sec : asymptbehav ] . in section  [ sec : numercompar ]
we compare the telegraph and diffusion approximations to two ( discrete- and continuous - space ) dctrws , completely described in section  [ sec : twoparticul ] , numerically , while asymptotic comparison of the approximations to the continuous - space dctrw at long times is performed in section  [ sec : asymptcompar ] .
section  [ sec : concl ] contains some conclusive remarks .
in this section we briefly formulate some facts concerning the ctrws for further reference .
we adopt the one - dimensional model and consider uncoupled ctrws , when the waiting time and jump length are independent random variables , i.e. , the joint probability density @xmath2 for a particle to jump a distance @xmath3 after waiting a time @xmath4 is given by @xmath5 where @xmath6 and @xmath7 are probability densities for the waiting time and jump length , respectively , with obvious normalizations @xmath8 and @xmath9 .
we consider here ctrws in a continuous space , however , they can be similarly described on a lattice , as it was originally proposed in @xcite , with obvious modifications .
the ctrw is described by the density @xmath10 , which is a probability density that the particle is at the point @xmath3 at the time @xmath4 , so that @xmath11 .
the density @xmath10 is given by the integral equation @xcite @xmath12    \shoveright{+ \int_0^t \int_{-\infty}^\infty \varphi(x - x',t - t ' ) \rho_{\mathrm{rw}}^{}(x',t ' ) { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{x ' } { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{t'}}\\[1ex ]    \shoveleft{= \varpsi(t ) \delta(x)}\\[1ex ]    + \int_0^t \psi(t - t ' ) \left [ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \lambda(x - x ' ) \rho_{\mathrm{rw}}^{}(x',t ' ) { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{x ' } \right ] { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{t'},\end{gathered}\ ] ] where @xmath13 is the dirac delta function , and @xmath14 is the survival probability , i.e. , the probability that a particle stays at the same position for the time @xmath4 .
here one assumes that at the initial moment @xmath15 the particle was at the point @xmath16 , i.e. , @xmath17 .
the fourier
laplace transform of the equation , denoted by @xmath18 , implies the montroll
weiss formula @xcite @xmath19}\\[1ex ]    = \frac{1-{\mathcal{l}}\psi(s)}{s \,[1 - { \mathcal{f}}{\lambda}(k ) { \mathcal{l}}\psi(s)]},\end{gathered}\ ] ] where @xmath20 is the fourier transform of @xmath21 , @xmath22 is the laplace transform of @xmath23 .    in the uncoupled ctrws the density @xmath24
can be expressed explicitly ( such a ctrw is the random walk subordinated to a renewal process ) @xcite : @xmath25 ( @xmath26 , with fixed @xmath4 , is actually a probability density of a random sum ) , where @xmath27 is the probability of @xmath28 jumps occurring up to the time @xmath4 , and @xmath29 is the probability density of a distance @xmath3 from the initial position reached by a particle after @xmath28 jumps . the probability density @xmath29 is given by @xmath30 where @xmath31 means the convolution , @xmath32 means the @xmath28-fold convolution of @xmath21 with itself , i.e. , @xmath33 , @xmath34 , and @xmath35 .
equivalently , @xmath36^n.\ ] ] the probability @xmath27 is given by @xmath37 ( clearly @xmath38 and @xmath39 for @xmath40 ) , in particular , @xmath41 .
equivalently , @xmath42^n.\ ] ]    this completes the set of auxiliary propositions necessary for further considerations .
consider a family of probability densities for waiting time @xmath4
@xcite @xmath43=    \begin{cases }      \dfrac{a}{\theta \sqrt{1-a } } { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-t/\theta } \sinh \left ( \dfrac{t}{\theta } \sqrt{1-a }
\right ) ,     & 0<a<1,\\[3.5ex ]      \dfrac{t}{\theta^2 } { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-t/\theta } , & a=1 ,    \end{cases}\end{gathered}\ ] ] ( obviously , @xmath44 ) .
the laplace transform of the density @xmath45 is @xmath46    \equiv    \frac{a}{\theta^2 } \frac{1}{(s + 1/\theta)^2 - ( 1-a)/\theta^2}.\end{gathered}\ ] ] the density @xmath47 was used in refs.@xcite ( see also ref.@xcite ) , and it belongs to the family of the gamma distributions .
the density @xmath47 is a probability density of a sum of two independent exponentially distributed random variables with the probability density @xmath48 , and ctrws with such a distribution of waiting times were called in ref.@xcite the delayed ctrws ( dctrws ) .
note that the mean waiting time for the exponential distribution is @xmath49 , and it is @xmath50 for the distribution @xmath47 .
the mean waiting time for the distribution @xmath45 is @xmath51 , i.e. , the mean waiting time tends to infinity as @xmath52 . completely understanding the conditional character of this notion we call for brevity the ctrws with the probability densities @xmath45 of the waiting time also the dctrws .
we denote densities describing the dctrws by @xmath53 .    the montroll
weiss formula with @xmath54 implies @xmath55 /\theta}.\ ] ] the straightforward calculations show that the density @xmath53 is a solution to the equation @xmath56
= \frac{a}{2 \theta } \left [ \int_{-\infty}^\infty \lambda(x - x ' ) \rho_{\mathrm{drw}}^{}(x',t ) { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{x ' } - \rho_{\mathrm{drw}}^{}(x , t ) \right]\end{gathered}\ ] ] with the initial value conditions @xmath57    consider a random walk on a regular one - dimensional lattice , where the distance between nearest - neighbour points is @xmath58 , and the coordinates of the lattice points are @xmath59 , @xmath60 .
suppose that jumps are made to the nearest - neighbour points with equal probability .
this discrete - space random walk is described by the probability density @xmath61/2 $ ] , and the equation becomes @xmath62    \shoveleft{= \frac{a}{2 \theta } \bigg [ \frac{\rho_{\mathrm{drw}}^{}(x_l - \sigma , t ) + \rho_{\mathrm{drw}}^{}(x_l + \sigma , t)}{2}}\\    - \rho_{\mathrm{drw}}^{}(x , t ) \bigg]\end{gathered}\ ] ] assuming that the density @xmath53 is smooth with respect to @xmath3 , one can expand it in the taylor series in @xmath3 . if @xmath58 is small enough then we neglect the derivatives of an order higher than two , and obtain the approximation for the density @xmath53 given by the solution of the telegraph equation ( te ) @xmath63 with the initial conditions @xmath64 the same result is obtained if jumps are made not only to the nearest - neighbour points , the only decisive condition is that the variance of the distribution @xmath65 is to be equal to @xmath66 .
similar derivation of the telegraph equation from the discrete - space random walk with the probability density @xmath45 for waiting time was performed in ref.@xcite , where the authors wrote about `` the continuum limit '' as @xmath67 .
note that both the equations and describe particles , moving with infinite velocity , while the telegraph equation describes phenomena with finite propagation speed .
another derivation of the telegraph approximation is given in ref.@xcite .
this is similar to the above one , but it is performed in the fourier  laplace space .
the derivation , given in ref.@xcite for @xmath68 , is in fact as follows . if the distribution of the jump length is symmetric and has the finite second moment with the variance equal to @xmath66 , then the fourier transform of the probability density of the jump length is approximately @xmath69 for @xmath70 .
after substitution of this @xmath71 and @xmath72 into the montroll
weiss formula one obtains that the fourier
laplace transform of the density @xmath53 is approximately equal to @xmath73 with @xmath74 the inverse fourier
laplace transform of @xmath75 implies that the density @xmath76 is a solution to the telegraph equation with the initial conditions .
the authors of the paper @xcite call the telegraph equation `` the limit of small jumps ( diffusive approximation ) '' of the ctrw with the probability density @xmath47 for waiting time .
the conclusion that the solution to the problem , approximates the dctrw is strange , since the telegraph equation describes phenomena with finite propagation speed . at the same time , the velocity of the motion of the particle in the dctrw is infinite , since waiting time can be arbitrarily small .
moreover , the telegraph equation obviously is not `` the limit of small jumps '' of the dctrws .
the asymptotic behaviour of various ctrws was studied in refs.@xcite . for convenience
we briefly repeat the asymptotic analysis for the dctrws on the basis of refs.@xcite . to find the asymptotic behaviour of the dctrws the densities @xmath7 and @xmath77 are replaced by the scaled densities @xmath78 , @xmath79 , and @xmath80 , @xmath81 , respectively @xcite .
the parameters @xmath82 and @xmath83 can be considered as the characteristic step length and waiting time , respectively .
the fourier transform of @xmath84 is @xmath85 , and the laplace transform of @xmath86 is @xmath87 .
we suppose that the distribution of the jump length is symmetric , @xmath88 , and has the finite second moment with the variance equal to @xmath66 , then the asymptotic behaviour for @xmath89 is @xmath90 as @xmath91 , @xmath92 @xcite . for the density @xmath86 one
has the asymptotics @xmath93 as @xmath94 .
the latter asymptotics are also valid in general case for @xmath95 , if the density @xmath23 has the finite expectation equal to @xmath51 @xcite .
after substitution of the above asymptotics into the montroll
weiss formula , one can see that the only possible nontrivial limit is @xmath96}\\[1ex ]    \to    { \mathcal{f}}{{\mathcal{l}}\rho}_{\mathrm{de}}^{}(k , s ) \quad\text{as}\enskip h \to 0 \enskip\text{and } \enskip \tau \to 0\end{gathered}\ ] ] under the scaling relation @xmath97 , where @xmath98 the inverse fourier
laplace transform implies that the density @xmath99 is a solution of the diffusion equation ( de ) @xmath100 with the initial condition @xmath101    thus , the asymptotic behaviour of the dctrws is given by the diffusion equation .
note that the diffusion equation is obtained from the telegraph equation by omitting the second time derivative .
note also that @xmath102 and @xmath103 , or , equivalently , @xmath104 and @xmath105 for @xmath106 , i.e. , the law of conservation of particles is valid for both the telegraph and diffusion approximations .
the other possible limits are @xmath107 as @xmath91 , and @xmath107 as @xmath108 and @xmath109 .
the former is the limit of infinitesimal jumps with finite mean waiting time .
this is the correct limit [ to be ] obtained in refs.@xcite .
these asymptotics are trivial , since the inverse fourier
laplace transform of @xmath110 gives @xmath111 , @xmath112 , which means that the particle does not leave an initial position .
the diffusion limit , under the scaling relation @xmath113 , is valid for a variety of symmetric ( unbiased ) random walks , both continuous - time and discrete - time ones @xcite . in particular
, it is valid for the symmetric bernoulli random walk , which is discrete both in time and space , when the waiting time is exactly @xmath83 and the jumps are exactly @xmath114 with equal probabilities , i.e. , the corresponding probability densities are @xmath115    \lambda_{\mathrm{d}}(x ) = \frac{1}{2 } [ \delta(x - h ) + \delta(x+h ) ] , \quad h>0.\end{gathered}\ ] ] however , in contrast to the ctrws , in which waiting time can be arbitrarily small and , hence , the particle moves with an infinite speed , the speed of the motion of the particle in the bernoulli random walk is finite . besides , it turns out that the solution of the telegraph equation approximates the density for the bernoulli random walk better than that of the diffusion equation @xcite .
it is necessary to note here that the explanation , given in ref.@xcite , does not allow us to judge whether the telegraph equation approximates the random walk better than the diffusion equation in a wide time interval ? to check this conclusion
we have performed calculations , in which the binomial distribution , being the distribution of the walking particle , was evaluated through the first two terms of stirling s asymptotic series for the gamma function @xcite @xmath116 $ ] as @xmath117 , @xmath118 , @xmath119 , @xmath120 , which is more accurate than conventional stirling s formula .
these calculations have confirmed the conclusion up to time @xmath121 , which seems to be asymptotic .
obviously , the solutions of both the diffusion equation and the telegraph one do not approximate the binomial distribution at short time .
the reason , by which the solution of the telegraph equation approximates the bernoulli random walk better than that of the diffusion equation , seems to be clear : the bernoulli particle moves with finite velocity . however , the probability density for the waiting time @xmath122 , eq .
, can be weakly approximated with arbitrary accuracy by the gamma distribution : @xmath123    \xrightarrow{\text{weakly } } \delta(t - \tau ) \quad \text{as } \enskip \mu \to + \infty,\end{gathered}\ ] ] where @xmath124 is the gamma function ; this can easily be derived with the laplace transform . in the random walk with the distribution @xmath125 of the waiting time the particle moves with infinite velocity , since the waiting time can generally be arbitrarily small . however , for sufficiently large @xmath126 the telegraph approximation to this random walk is clearly better than the diffusion one , since @xmath127 is very `` close '' to @xmath128 .
thus , in spite of the diffusion asymptotic behaviour for the dctrws and the infinite speed of the motion of the particle , the question still remains : which of the telegraph or the diffusion equations gives better approximation to the dctrws ?
to compare the telegraph and diffusion equations with the dctrws we consider two particular dctrws .
one of them is a discrete - space random walk , the other is the continuous - space one .    the _ discrete - space _ random walk takes place on a regular one - dimensional lattice , where the distance between nearest - neighbour points is @xmath58 , and the coordinates of the lattice points are @xmath59 , @xmath129 .
jumps are made to the nearest - neighbour points with equal probability .
this random walk is described by the probability density @xmath130.\ ] ] the subscript @xmath131 means bernoulli ( since this is the same distribution as in the bernoulli random walk ) .
the variance of this distribution is equal to @xmath66 .
the _ continuous - space _ random walk has the gaussian distribution of the jump length with the variance equal also to @xmath66 : @xmath132 its fourier transform is @xmath133 .
the gaussian distribution of the jump length was used in ref.@xcite .
the densities of the discrete- and continuous - space dctrws are given in appendix  [ sec : twoparticul ] by eqs . and , respectively .
the telegraph and diffusion approximations are given by eqs . and , respectively .
all numerical results are obtained with the parameters @xmath134 and @xmath135 .
figs.[fig : dens ] and [ fig : denslog ] show ( in cartesian and logarithmic scales ) the densities of the continuous- and discrete - space dctrws and their telegraph and diffusion approximations at intermediate values of time @xmath136 and @xmath137 with @xmath68 .
figs.[fig : densdiscrepgauss ] and [ fig : densdiscrepbin ] show differences between each of the two approximations and the densities of the continuous- and discrete - space dctrws , respectively , obtained for the same values of time and the parameters .
calculations show that in all the cases the @xmath0-discrepancy for the diffusion approximation is less than that for the telegraph one . in the case of the discrete - space random
walk we calculated the @xmath138-discrepancy .
note also that the maximum absolute value of the difference for the diffusion approximation is in all the cases less than that for the telegraph approximation . besides , it is important to emphasize that the telegraph approximation is incorrect with respect to the velocity of the motion of the particle , see figs.[fig : dens ] and [ fig : denslog ] for @xmath136 .
the telegraph model gives the finite velocity , while it is infinite in the dctrws .
the diffusion model is correct in this respect , however the diffusion paradox remains .     and
@xmath139 and the telegraph and diffusion approximations @xmath140 and @xmath141 at @xmath136 and @xmath137 with @xmath134 , @xmath68 and @xmath135 .
the singular terms @xmath142 and @xmath143 are depicted by vertical arrows . ]    , with logarithmic scale on the vertical axis . ]     and @xmath144 at @xmath136 and @xmath137 with @xmath134 , @xmath68 and @xmath135 .
note that the vertical scale unit is @xmath145 . ]     and @xmath146 at @xmath136 and @xmath137 with @xmath134 , @xmath68 and @xmath135 .
note that the vertical scale unit is @xmath145 . ]    to assess the approximations at long times we have performed in appendix  [ sec : asymptcompar ] asymptotic comparison of the telegraph and diffusion approximations to the continuous - space dctrw through their fourier transforms .
fig.[fig : fourharmlongt ] shows graphs resulting from the fourier transforms @xmath147 , @xmath148 and @xmath149 at @xmath150 and @xmath151 with @xmath68 .
these values correspond to the values of the small parameter @xmath152 and @xmath153 , respectively ( see appendix  [ sec : asymptcompar ] ) .
fig.[fig : fourharmlongtdiscrep2 ] shows the integrands of the integrals for the same values of time and parameters @xmath58 , @xmath154 and @xmath49 as in fig.[fig : fourharmlongt ] .
note that the asymptotics and provide very good approximations ( not shown in the figure ) to the integrands .    , @xmath155 and @xmath149 at @xmath150 and @xmath151 with @xmath134 , @xmath68 and @xmath135 , i.e. , @xmath156 and @xmath157 . ]     and @xmath151 with @xmath134 , @xmath68 and @xmath135 , i.e. , @xmath156 and @xmath157 .
note that the vertical scale unit is @xmath158 . ]    for comparison we show in fig.[fig : densdiscrepbinlongt ] differences between each of the two approximations and the densities of the discrete - space dctrw ( not fourier transforms ) , obtained at the same long times @xmath150 and @xmath151 with @xmath68 .
note that fig.[fig : densdiscrepbinlongt ] is qualitatively similar to fig.[fig : densdiscrepbin ] . in these cases
the @xmath138-discrepancy for the diffusion approximation is also less than that for the telegraph one .
we do not show differences between the two approximations and the densities of the continuous - space dctrw for @xmath150 and @xmath151 because fig.[fig : fourharmlongtdiscrep2 ] illustrates this via the fourier transforms .     and
@xmath146 at @xmath150 and @xmath151 , @xmath134 , @xmath68 and @xmath135 .
note that the vertical scale unit is @xmath159 .
with fig.[fig : densdiscrepbin ] . ]
figs.[fig : densa01smallt ] and [ fig : densa01 ] show the densities of the continuous- and discrete - space dctrws and their telegraph and diffusion approximations with the parameter @xmath160 .
fig.[fig : densa01smallt ] corresponds to the small value of time @xmath150 ( @xmath161 ) , which is equal to the mean waiting time . in this case
the singular term @xmath142 is quite `` heavy '' : the probability that the particle stays at the initial point is @xmath162 .
note that the telegraph and diffusion `` approximations '' essentially differ from the densities of the dctrws . at the same time they are very close to each other .
fig.[fig : densa01 ] corresponds to intermediate and long time : @xmath151 , @xmath163 ( intermediate ) and @xmath164 ( long ) ( @xmath165 , @xmath166 and @xmath153 , respectively ) . for @xmath151
the singular term @xmath142 is still `` heavy '' enough : the probability that the particle stays at the initial point for the time @xmath151 is @xmath167 .
it is necessary to emphasize that all the results are in agreement with the asymptotics  ( even for intermediate and small values of time ) : the differences between the two approximations are much less than the differences between each of them , and the densities of the dctrws , while the diffusion approximation is slightly better than the telegraph one .     and @xmath139 and the telegraph and diffusion approximations @xmath140 and @xmath141 at @xmath150 , @xmath134 , @xmath160 and @xmath135 ( @xmath161 ) .
the telegraph and diffusion approximations are very close to each other .
the singular terms @xmath142 and @xmath143 are depicted by vertical arrows .
note that the singular term @xmath142 is quite `` heavy '' . ]     and @xmath139 and the telegraph and diffusion approximations @xmath140 and @xmath141 at @xmath151 , @xmath163 and @xmath164 , @xmath134 , @xmath160 and @xmath135 ( @xmath165 , @xmath166 and @xmath153 ) .
the telegraph and diffusion approximations are almost undistinguishable in the figure .
the singular terms @xmath142 and @xmath143 ( only for @xmath151 ) are depicted by vertical arrows .
cf . with fig.[fig : dens ] . ]    the dctrws with small @xmath154 can be explained as follows .
small values of @xmath154 mean that the particle mostly remains in rest than jumps , since the mean waiting time is long enough .
small values of time can be described as lesser than or comparable with the mean waiting time @xmath51 , i.e. , such that @xmath168 .
therefore , for small values of time both the diffusion and telegraph equations badly approximate the dctrw , see fig.[fig : densa01smallt ] . at the same time , if @xmath169 then @xmath170 , i.e. , the singular term of the telegraph approximation is negligible . in this case
the solution of the telegraph equation behaves like the solution of the diffusion equation . at long times
the telegraph and diffusion approximations are almost undistinguishable and both are good , while the diffusion one is slightly better .
we should remind that the telegraph equation describes transport phenomena with finite propagation speed , while the velocity of the motion of the particle in the dctrws is infinite , i.e. , the dctrws do not simulate the most distinctive property of the telegraph equation . moreover , asymptotic analysis and computations performed in this paper show that the diffusion equation gives better approximations to the dctrws than the telegraph equation . in other words , _
the dctrws are always closer to their continuous limit than to the solutions of the telegraph equation_. this implies that , in contrast to the widespread opinion , the dctrws do not simulate the telegraph equation at the microscopic level .
likewise , ctrws with the exponentially distributed and general waiting time do not simulate the telegraph equation at the microscopic level .    summing up , we can conclude that , first , the dctrws do not provide any correct microscopic interpretation of the one - dimensional telegraph equation , and second , the kinetic ( exact ) model of the telegraph equation is different from the model based on the dctrws .
an interesting question arises concerning discrete - space random walks with the distributions of the jump length @xmath65 , eq . , and the waiting time @xmath125 , eq .. for sufficiently large @xmath126 this walk is very close to the bernoulli random walk , eq .. for @xmath171 this is the discrete - space ctrw with the exponentially distributed waiting time @xmath172 . in the former case
the telegraph approximation is better than the diffusion one , while in the latter case the diffusion approximation is better .
being incompletely stated yet , the problem is the following one : is there @xmath173 such that for @xmath174 the diffusion equation gives better approximation to these discrete - space ctrws than the telegraph one , while for @xmath175 the telegraph approximation is better ?    the support by the rfbr grants 08 - 01 - 00315-a , 10 - 01 - 00627-a , 11 - 01 - 00573-a , the ec collaborative project health - f5 - 2010 - 260429 and project no.14.740.11.0166 of the russian ministry of science and education is gratefully acknowledged .
we thank anonymous referees for useful comments .
the density of the dctrw with the distribution @xmath176 of the jump length results from the discrete - space variant of the formula .
we denote the density by @xmath177 .
it is given by @xmath178 where the probability density @xmath179 is given by the scaled binomial distribution @xmath180=    \begin{cases }      \dfrac{n!}{2^n \,[(n+|l|)/2 ] !
\,[(n-|l|)/2 ] ! } , \\[2ex ] \hspace{8.5em}|l| \leq n \enskip\text{and }      & \hspace{-1ex}n+l \enskip\text{is even},\\[1.5ex ]      0 , \hspace{8.2em}n < |l| \enskip\text{or }      & \hspace{-1ex}n+l \enskip\text{is odd } ,    \end{cases}\end{gathered}\ ] ] and @xmath181 stands for the probability @xmath182 , corresponding to the distribution @xmath45 .
the laplace transform of @xmath181 is @xmath183^{n+1}}.\ ] ] therefore , the probability @xmath181 is given by @xmath184 , & 0<a<1,\\[3ex ]    { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-t/\theta } \bigg [ \dfrac{1}{(2n ) ! } \left(\dfrac{t}{\theta}\right)^{2n } \\[3ex ] \hspace{2.5em}+ \dfrac{1}{(2n+1 ) ! } \left(\dfrac{t}{\theta}\right)^{2n+1 } \bigg ] , & a=1 ,    \end{cases}\ ] ] where @xmath185    \times \left [ ( -1)^m { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{\sqrt{1-a } \,t/\theta } + ( -1)^{n+1 } { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-\sqrt{1-a } \,t/\theta } \right]\end{gathered}\ ] ] with corresponding limit as @xmath186 .    the density of the dctrw with the gaussian distribution @xmath187 of the jump length results from the formula .
we denote the density by @xmath188 .
it is given by @xmath189 where the singular term is @xmath190 with @xmath191 \hspace{1.5ex}+ \dfrac{1}{\sqrt{1-a } } \sinh \left ( \dfrac{t}{\theta } \sqrt{1-a } \right ) \bigg ] , & 0<a<1,\\[3ex ]    { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-t/\theta } \left ( 1 + \dfrac{t}{\theta } \right ) , & a=1 ,    \end{cases}\ ] ] and the regular term is @xmath192    the _ telegraph approximation _ is given by the solution to the initial - value problem , for the telegraph equation @xcite @xmath193 where the singular term is @xmath194,\ ] ] and the regular term is @xmath195    + t \left ( \sqrt{t^2 - \frac{x^2}{v^2 } } \right)^{-1 } \,i_1 \left ( \frac{1}{\theta } \sqrt{t^2 - \frac{x^2}{v^2 } } \right ) \bigg],\end{gathered}\ ] ] @xmath196 is the velocity , @xmath197 is the heaviside step function .    the _ diffusion approximation _
is given by the solution to the initial - value problem , for the diffusion equation @xmath198    note that the significant difference between the density @xmath188 of the dctrw and the solution @xmath76 of the telegraph equation is that the support of @xmath142 is localized at the starting point of the walk ( @xmath16 ) , while the support of @xmath143 is localized at the moving front ( @xmath199 ) .
the term @xmath142 is negligible for @xmath200 , while the term @xmath143 is negligible for @xmath170 , the former condition being stronger .
note also that the support of @xmath201 is @xmath202 , while the support of @xmath203 is @xmath204 $ ] .
however , the latter difference appears to be in general not so significant .
indeed , according to the demoivre
laplace and the central limit theorems @xcite the solution of the diffusion equation approximates the bernoulli random walk with @xmath205 and @xmath206 , @xmath207 in the expression being the number of jumps .
the solution has the support @xmath202 , while the particle involved into the random walk has a finite velocity , nevertheless , the diffusion approximation is a classic and widely used one to the bernoulli random walk .
in this section the long time means @xmath200 , i.e. , time is longer than the mean waiting time @xmath51 .
we compare the telegraph and diffusion approximations to the continuous - space dctrw at long times by evaluation the @xmath208 norms of the differences @xmath209 and @xmath210 .
it is more convenient to consider the @xmath208 norms of the fourier transforms of the differences . recall that the @xmath208 norms of a function @xmath211 and its fourier transform @xmath212 are related by @xmath213 .
thus , we need to estimate the integrals @xmath214    \int_0^\infty \left| { \mathcal{f}}\rho_{\mathrm{de}}^{}(k , t ) - { \mathcal{f}}\rho_{\mathrm{drwg}}^{\mathrm{r}}(k , t ) \right|^2 { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{k}\end{gathered}\ ] ] at long times ( the integrals are taken over the interval @xmath215 , rather than @xmath216 , since the integrands are even with respect to @xmath217 ) .    the fourier
laplace transform of the density @xmath188 of the dctrw with the gaussian distribution @xmath187 of the jump length is the following one @xmath218 /\theta^2},\end{gathered}\ ] ] which results directly from the montroll
weiss formula with @xmath219 and @xmath54 .
this implies the fourier transform @xmath220      \shoveright{+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - a r(k ) } } \sinh \left ( \frac{t}{\theta } \sqrt{1 - a r(k ) } \right ) \bigg],}\\[1ex ]    r(k ) = 1 - { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-\sigma^2 k^2 /2},\end{gathered}\ ] ] the fourier transform of the singular term being @xmath221 where @xmath222 is given by eq .. obviously @xmath223 as @xmath224 .
the fourier
laplace transform of the telegraph approximation can be rewritten as @xmath225 this implies the fourier transform @xmath226 + \left ( \sqrt{1 - a \frac{\sigma^2 k^2}{2 } } \right)^{-1 } \sinh \left ( \frac{t}{\theta } \sqrt{1 - a \frac{\sigma^2 k^2}{2 } } \right ) \bigg],\end{gathered}\ ] ] where we assume that if @xmath227 , then @xmath228 .
the fourier transform of the singular term is @xmath229 obviously @xmath230 as @xmath224 .        to estimate the integrals at long times it is convenient to introduce the small parameter @xmath235 and change the variable @xmath217 for @xmath236 .
then we have in the new variable the fourier transform of the density of the continuous - space dctrw @xmath237\shoveright{+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - a r(\zeta ) } } \sinh \left ( \frac{\sqrt{1 - a r(\zeta)}}{a\varepsilon } \right ) \bigg],}\\[1ex ]    r(\zeta ) = 1 - { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-2 \varepsilon \zeta^2},\end{gathered}\ ] ] the `` singular term '' being @xmath238 $ ] , the fourier transform of the telegraph approximation @xmath239 + \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - 2 a \varepsilon \zeta^2 } } \sinh \left ( \frac{\sqrt{1 - 2 a \varepsilon \zeta^2}}{a\varepsilon } \right ) \bigg],\end{gathered}\ ] ] the `` singular term '' being @xmath240 , and the fourier transform of the diffusion approximation @xmath241 the integrals , within a factor of @xmath242 , become in the new variable @xmath243    \sqrt{\varepsilon } \int_0^\infty \left| { \mathcal{f}}\rho_{\mathrm{de}}^{}(\zeta , t ) - { \mathcal{f}}\rho_{\mathrm{drwg}}^{\mathrm{r}}(\zeta , t ) \right|^2 { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}{\zeta}.\end{gathered}\ ] ]    the `` regular term '' @xmath244 tends to zero monotonously and exponentially as @xmath245 , as well as the fourier transform @xmath246 .
therefore , the second integral of the integrals can be approximated with arbitrary accuracy by the integral with the upper limit @xmath247 instead of @xmath248 , if @xmath247 is sufficiently large .
for small @xmath249 the fourier transform @xmath250 tends to zero monotonously and exponentially on the interval @xmath251 $ ] , where the square root in eq .
is nonnegative .
the `` singular term '' @xmath233 can be neglected on this interval for small @xmath249 .
asymptotic behaviour of the `` regular term '' is @xmath252 as @xmath245 .
the reason for such a behaviour is that the regular term @xmath253 is discontinuous at @xmath254 . nevertheless , due to exponential decrease of @xmath255 for small @xmath249 the first integral of the integrals
can be approximated with arbitrary accuracy by the integral with the upper limit @xmath247 instead of @xmath248 , if @xmath247 is sufficiently large .
note that for any @xmath247 there exists sufficiently small @xmath249 such that @xmath256 , i.e. , @xmath257 \subset [ 0,1/\sqrt{2a\varepsilon}]$ ] .
the straightforward calculations imply uniform asymptotics on the interval @xmath257 $ ] : @xmath258=    \left\ { 1 + \left [ \frac{a}{2 } \left ( \zeta^2 - \zeta^4 \right ) + \zeta^4 \right ] \varepsilon \right\ } { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-\zeta^2 } + o(\varepsilon^2)\\    \text{as}\quad \varepsilon \to 0\end{gathered}\ ] ] and @xmath259 \varepsilon \right\ } { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-\zeta^2 } + o(\varepsilon^2)\\    \text{as}\quad \varepsilon \to 0\end{gathered}\ ] ] ( @xmath260 and @xmath250 have the same asymptotics ) .
therefore , the asymptotics for the differences are @xmath261=    - \zeta^4 { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-\zeta^2 } \varepsilon + o(\varepsilon^2 )    \quad\text{as}\quad \varepsilon \to 0\end{gathered}\ ] ] and @xmath262=    - \left [ \frac{a}{2 } \left ( \zeta^2 - \zeta^4 \right ) + \zeta^4 \right ] { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-\zeta^2 } \varepsilon + o(\varepsilon^2 )    \quad\text{as}\quad \varepsilon \to 0.\end{gathered}\ ] ]    therefore , at long times ( for small @xmath249 ) the integrals are @xmath263\simeq    \varepsilon^{2.5 } \int_0^\infty \zeta^8 { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-2\zeta^2 } { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\zeta =    \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 } } \,\frac{7!!}{2 ^ 9 } \,\varepsilon^{2.5 } \\[1ex]\approx 0.257 \,\varepsilon^{2.5}\end{gathered}\ ] ] and @xmath264\simeq    \varepsilon^{2.5 } \int_0^\infty \left [ \frac{a}{2 } \left ( \zeta^2 - \zeta^4 \right ) + \zeta^4 \right]^2 { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-2\zeta^2 } { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\zeta\\[1ex ]    \shoveleft{= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2 } } \bigg [ \left ( \frac{3!!}{2 ^ 7 } - \frac{5!!}{2 ^ 8 } + \frac{7!!}{2^{11 } } \right ) a^2 } \\[1ex ] \shoveright{+ \left ( \frac{5!!}{2 ^ 7 } - \frac{7!!}{2 ^ 9 } \right ) a + \frac{7!!}{2 ^ 9 } \bigg ] \varepsilon^{2.5 } } \\[1ex]\approx    ( 0.020 \,a^2 - 0.110 \,a + 0.257 ) \,\varepsilon^{2.5}.\end{gathered}\ ] ] note that at long times the same integral for the difference @xmath265 is @xmath266\simeq    \varepsilon^{2.5 } \int_0^\infty \left [ \frac{a}{2 } \left ( \zeta^2 - \zeta^4 \right ) \right]^2 { \mathop{\mathrm{e}}\nolimits}^{-2\zeta^2 } { \mathop{}\!\mathrm{d}}\zeta    \approx 0.020 \,a^2 \,\varepsilon^{2.5}.\end{gathered}\ ] ]    the asymptotic estimates and show that at long times the diffusion approximation to the density @xmath188 of the dctrw is better in the @xmath208 norm , than the telegraph approximation . at the same time , for small @xmath154 the telegraph approximation is almost as good as the diffusion one .
e.  w. montroll and m.  f. shlesinger . on the wonderful world of random walks . in j.
l. lebowitz and e.  w. montroll , editors , _ nonequilibrium phenomena ii : from stochastics to hydrodynamics _
, volume  11 of _ studies in statistical mechanics _ , pages 1121 .
north - holland , amsterdam , 1984 .
b.  i. henry , t.  a.  m. langlands , and s.  l. wearne .
anomalous diffusion with linear reaction dynamics : from continuous time random walks to fractional reaction - diffusion equations . , 74:031116 ( 15  pp ) , 2006 .