Markov Process: How to Tell Reversibility & Eigenvalues=1

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mentz114
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Markov processes, specifically focusing on the concepts of reversibility and the implications of having multiple eigenvalues equal to 1. Participants explore definitions, provide examples, and reference literature related to these topics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the definition of a reversible Markov process and how to determine its reversibility.
  • There is a suggestion that the identity matrix may serve as a counterexample to certain claims about reversibility.
  • One participant proposes that reversibility implies a way into and out of every state, while another questions the validity of this interpretation.
  • A specific transition matrix is presented as an example of a time-reversible Markov process that satisfies detailed balance conditions and has multiple eigenvalues equal to 1 due to its reducibility.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between irreducibility and the multiplicity of eigenvalues, noting that these concepts are distinct from time reversibility.
  • There is mention of the importance of standard terminology in discussing Markov chains, with references to transient and recurrent states.
  • Some participants express confusion regarding the implications of being a tree in relation to reducibility and reversibility.
  • One participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the use of the term "equilibrium" and expresses a need to further explore the concept of reducibility.
  • References to literature, including works by Kelly and discussions on Peron Frobenius Theory, are shared as resources for further understanding.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions and implications of reversibility and reducibility in Markov processes. Multiple competing views and interpretations remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the definitions of terms like "irreversible equilibrium states" and the implications of being a tree in the context of Markov processes. Participants also note the complexity of the subject and the necessity of precise vocabulary.

Mentz114
Messages
5,429
Reaction score
292
I refer to the transition matrix for a Markov process and I have two questions

1. How can one tell if a Markov process is reversible ?
2. Can it have two (or more) eigenvalues equal to 1 ?

My definition of the matrix is that it should have all rows(or columns) sum to 1.

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Please define reversible Markov process.

For (2), the identity matrix says that the answer is yes.
 
Math_QED said:
Please define reversible Markov process.

For (2), the identity matrix says that the answer is yes.
I guess reversible here means there is a way into and out of every node. This eliminates the identity matrix.
 
Mentz114 said:
I guess reversible here means there is a way into and out of every node. This eliminates the identity matrix.

You mean concretely that for every two states ##x,y##, we have ##x \to y?##

Also, why is the identity matrix a counterexample? You never said that (1) and (2) must hold at the same time?
 
Math_QED said:
You mean concretely that for every two states ##x,y##, we have ##x \to y?##

Also, why is the identity matrix a counterexample? You never said that (1) and (2) must hold at the same time?
I found what I needed here. It is the same as detailed balance and I do know how to calculate if that is maintained.

https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~gravner/MAT135B/materials/ch16.pdf
Thanks.
 
A few things:

The standard reference on reversible chains is from Kelly, freely available here:
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/BOOKS/kelly_book.html

I'd suggest going through chapter 1 in particular.

Your question about multiplicity of eigenvalues = 1 really has nothing to do with time reversibility and everything to do with irreducibility. (Note the identity matrix is the most extreme form of reduciblity.)

To be clear you are talking about a time homogenous discrete time markov chain (or the underlying 'jump chain' for a markov process).

Consider the transition matrix

##\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1&0&0\\
1 & 0 &0&0\\
0 & 0&0&1 \\
0 & 0&1&0\\
\end{bmatrix}##

This is time reversible and does satisfy the detailed balance conditions. The reason it has 2 eigenvalues = 1 is because it is reducible -- which is a graph idea (and in finite states its nicely developed in Peron Frobenius Theory).
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: Mentz114
StoneTemplePython said:
A few things:

The standard reference on reversible chains is from Kelly, freely available here:
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/BOOKS/kelly_book.html

I'd suggest going through chapter 1 in particular.

Your question about multiplicity of eigenvalues = 1 really has nothing to do with time reversibility and everything to do with irreducibility. (Note the identity matrix is the most extreme form of reduciblity.)

To be clear you are talking about a time homogenous discrete time markov chain (or the underlying 'jump chain' for a markov process).

Consider the transition matrix

##\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 1&0&0\\
1 & 0 &0&0\\
0 & 0&0&1 \\
0 & 0&1&0\\
\end{bmatrix}##

This is time reversible and does satisfy the detailed balance conditions. The reason it has 2 eigenvalues = 1 is because it is reducible -- which is a graph idea (and in finite states its nicely developed in Peron Frobenius Theory).
That is very helpful, thank you. I will look at irreducibility.
 
StoneTemplePython said:
A few things:

The standard reference on reversible chains is from Kelly, freely available here:
http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~frank/BOOKS/kelly_book.html
[]
Excellent book. I have found that the process I'm studying is not a tree because it has a reflector at each end (edge?) and therefore reducible.
The e-vectors are concentrated at the end states giving two possible irreversible eqilibrium states. Or is that inference wrong ?
 
I'm not sure what being a tree has to do with it -- reducibility comes down to communicating classes.

what are e-vectors? Eigenvectors?

What are 'irreversible equilibrium states'? There's a lot of standard terminology that should be used here like transient states vs recurrent states, etc. If you don't have prior familiarity with markov chains, maybe this page can help:

http://www.randomservices.org/random/markov/Discrete.html
 
  • #10
StoneTemplePython said:
I'm not sure what being a tree has to do with it -- reducibility comes down to communicating classes.

what are e-vectors? Eigenvectors?

What are 'irreversible equilibrium states'? There's a lot of standard terminology that should be used here like transient states vs recurrent states, etc. If you don't have prior familiarity with markov chains, maybe this page can help:

http://www.randomservices.org/random/markov/Discrete.html
I'm familiar enough to understand the book you linked to.
I use the word 'equilibrium ' incorrectly from thermodynamics.

I understand a tree as a kind of graph. See lemma 1.5, page 9 of the book.
 
  • #11
Mentz114 said:
I understand a tree as a kind of graph. See lemma 1.5, page 9 of the book.
So I too know what a tree is... but what you wrote is

Mentz114 said:
I have found that the process I'm studying is not a tree because it has a reflector at each end (edge?) and therefore reducible.
lemma 1.5 gives a sufficient condition for being reversible but it states this is no means necessary. So there isn't a converse here that you can call on for being "not a tree" for reversibility. Nor for that matter is there a converse for a non-tree and reducibility.

I'm scratching my head here.

This stuff gets complicated very quickly. Pinning down the vocabularly is vital.
 
  • #12
Yes, it does. I'm misreading things now. Time to stop. Lemma 1.4 refers to the 'equilibrium equations' and those are just the detailed balance conditions.

Thanks for your help. I need to read some more to find out what reducibility is and why it is relevant. So I'll stop bothering you.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: StoneTemplePython
  • #13
Mentz114 said:
Yes, it does. I'm misreading things now. Time to stop. Lemma 1.4 refers to the 'equilibrium equations' and those are just the detailed balance conditions.

Thanks for your help. I need to read some more to find out what reducibility is and why it is relevant. So I'll stop bothering you.

For finite state chains, you can get the bulk of the results you want via Peron Frobenius Theory. The discussion in Meyer's Matrix Analysis is very hard to beat in this regard. The author used to make a watermarked copy freely available on the internet, though not anymore. Reading the wikipedia page on Peron Frobenius and following links in the Notes can pay dividends though...

The big idea is:
-- reversible chains have detailed balance equations so we can get closed form solutions that frequently would be too nasty when just dealing with global balance equations
-- as mentioned in kelly, the transition matrix for a time reversible chain is similar to a symmetric one (this has very nice spectral properties finite dimensions)
-- there's some other insights you can get by running a process backwards that are hard to come by (there's a criterion from Kolmogorov in chapter 1 of Kelly that helps interpret this)
-- an irreducible chain is the simplest form, if something is reducible, then it can be decomposed into simpler parts, and simple is good.
- - - - -
Once you've had time to digest, feel free to revert.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K