Stationary distribution for a doubly stochastic matrix.

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
4 replies · 7K views
spitz
Messages
57
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I can find the stationary distribution vector [itex]\boldsymbol\pi[/itex] for a stochastic matrix [itex]P[/itex] using:

[itex]\boldsymbol\pi P=\boldsymbol\pi[/itex], where [itex]\pi_1+\pi_2+\ldots+\pi_k=1[/itex]

However, I can't find a textbook that explains how to do this for a doubly stochastic (bistochastic) matrix. Could somebody show me how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
spitz said:

Homework Statement



I can find the stationary distribution vector [itex]\boldsymbol\pi[/itex] for a stochastic matrix [itex]P[/itex] using:

[itex]\boldsymbol\pi P=\boldsymbol\pi[/itex], where [itex]\pi_1+\pi_2+\ldots+\pi_k=1[/itex]

However, I can't find a textbook that explains how to do this for a doubly stochastic (bistochastic) matrix. Could somebody show me how?

What are you trying to do? Has somebody told you what the actual values are of [itex]\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_n,[/itex] and you want to verify (or at least understand) the results? Or, do you not know what the solution is?

RGV
 
I know how to find the distribution vector for any [itex]r\times r[/itex] stochastic matrix. I want to know why, if the matrix is doubly stochastic, you don't need to solve the system of equations and the distribution vector is just [itex](1/r,\ldots ,1/r)[/itex].
 
spitz said:
I know how to find the distribution vector for any [itex]r\times r[/itex] stochastic matrix. I want to know why, if the matrix is doubly stochastic, you don't need to solve the system of equations and the distribution vector is just [itex](1/r,\ldots ,1/r)[/itex].


Without some qualifications the result is not true: consider P = nxn identity matrix. It is doubly-stochastic, but any row vector (v1, v2, ..., vn) satisfies the equation vP = v. If, however, we assume P corresponds to an irreducible chain, the result is true.

Take the case where P has at least two nonzero entries in each column. Suppose the row vector π does not have equal entries. Look at the jth equation [itex]\pi_j = \sum_{i} \pi_i p_{i,j}.[/itex] Since the column entries sum to 1, this is a weighted average of [/itex] \pi_1, \ldots, \pi_n.[/itex] and since there are at least two nonzero entries in the column, we have [itex]\min(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_n) < \pi_j < \max(\pi_1,\ldots, \pi_n).[/itex] You ought to be able to derive a contradiction from this.

You still need to deal with cases where at least one column has only one entry (which would be 1.0), but which is, nevertheless, irreducible.

RGV
 
spitz said:
I know how to find the distribution vector for any [itex]r\times r[/itex] stochastic matrix. I want to know why, if the matrix is doubly stochastic, you don't need to solve the system of equations and the distribution vector is just [itex](1/r,\ldots ,1/r)[/itex].


Without some qualifications the result is not true: consider P = nxn identity matrix. It is doubly-stochastic, but any row vector (v1, v2, ..., vn) satisfies the equation vP = v. If, however, we assume P corresponds to an irreducible chain, the result is true.

Take the case where P has at least two nonzero entries in each column. Suppose the row vector π does not have equal entries. Look at the jth equation [itex]\pi_j = \sum_{i} \pi_i p_{i,j}.[/itex] Since the column entries sum to 1, this is a weighted average of [itex]\pi_1, \ldots, \pi_n.[/itex] and since there are at least two nonzero entries in the column, we have [itex]\min(\pi_1,\ldots,\pi_n) < \pi_j < \max(\pi_1,\ldots, \pi_n).[/itex] You ought to be able to derive a contradiction from this.

You still need to deal with cases where at least one column has only one entry (which would be 1.0), but which is, nevertheless, irreducible.

RGV