2015
DOI: 10.1214/ejp.v20-3881
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Subcritical contact process seen from the edge: convergence to quasi-equilibrium

Abstract: E l e c t r o n i c J o u r n a l o f P r o b a b i l i t y Electron. AbstractThe subcritical contact process seen from the rightmost infected site has no invariant measures. We prove that nevertheless it converges in distribution to a quasi-stationary measure supported on finite configurations.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
26
1

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
26
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The proof now follows exactly as before: by Lemmas 3.1 and 4.1, a nucleation in S grows, with high probability, to fill the whole of S within time 2 and C was chosen sufficiently large. It follows that…”
Section: Run For Time T Allowing Only 2-neighbor Infectionsmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The proof now follows exactly as before: by Lemmas 3.1 and 4.1, a nucleation in S grows, with high probability, to fill the whole of S within time 2 and C was chosen sufficiently large. It follows that…”
Section: Run For Time T Allowing Only 2-neighbor Infectionsmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…After time Θ( √ n), a nucleation will appear at distance = Θ( √ n) from the origin; this infection will then spread sideways at rate 1, reaching the origin after time ± O( √ ). It follows easily that = Θ( √ n) with high probability, 2 and moreover that there is no sharp threshold for . In two dimensions the situation is substantially more complicated, so let us begin by considering the growth of a single nucleation, which produces (after some time) a (roughly) square "droplet" growing around it.…”
Section: Outline Of the Proofmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…iii. If ξ (x) sT (J m ) > 0 for some (random) s ≥ τ (1) , then choose some y ∈ ξ where ⌈s⌉ here denotes the smallest integer greater than or equal to s. Let us observe that, by construction, there exists a (random) k ∈ N such that V (2) j ≤ ξ (x) (k+j)T (B) for all j ∈ N. By a similar argument than the one carried out for V (1) , it is possible to couple V (2) with a Galton-Watson process Z (2) which is independent of Z (1) but has the same distribution, in such a way that V jT must tend to infinity as j → +∞. If not, then one can repeat this procedure to obtain a branching process Z (3) and so on.…”
Section: Proof Of Theorem 210mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Whenever the convergence in (1) is understood in the L 2 -sense, all previous results so far require the branching process ξ to be λ-positive. Essentially, λ-positivity means that the motion of a certain spine describing the genealogy of the branching process (which is sometimes referred to in the literature as the immortal particle) is positive recurrent, a property which proves crucial in all of the approaches developed until now.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using Proposition 1.1 and controlling the statistical effect of picking the rightmost infected site, it is shown in [AEGR15] that, for any infinite initial configuration A ⊆ −N, the subcritical contact process seen from the rightmost point converges in distribution to ν.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%