3.4 Classification of States

Definition 3.4.1.

i.
State \(j\) is said to be accessible from state \(i\) \((i\longrightarrow j)\) if \(\exists \) a non negative integer \(n\) such that \(P^n_{ij} > 0.\)
ii.
States \(i\) and \(j\) communicate if state \(i\) is accessible from state \(j\) and state \(j\) is accessible from state \(i\). In symbols we write \((i \longleftrightarrow j)\).

The relation of communication satisfies the following properties:

(a)
State \(i\) communicates with itself \(i\longleftrightarrow i\hspace {0.2cm}\forall \hspace {0.1cm} \) states \(i\).
(b)
If state \(i\) communicates with state \(j\), then \(j\) communicate with \(i\).
(c)
If state \(i\) communicates with \(j\) and state \(j\) communicates with state \(k\) then state \(i\) communicates with state \(k\) for any three states \(i, j\) and \(k\)

Proof. Since \(\, i\longleftrightarrow j, \, \exists \, \) integers \(m\geq 0\) such that \(P^m_{ij} > 0\).
Similarly, \(P^n_{jk} > 0\) for any integer \(n\geq 0\) \begin {align*} P_{ik}^{n + m} & = \sum ^{\infty }_{l = 0} P^m_{il}\, P^n_{lk} \hspace {0.3cm}(\text {Kolmogrov equation})\\ & > P^{m}_{ij}\, P^n_{ik} \end {align*}

Hence \(P^{n + m}_{ik} > 0\). Implying \(i \longrightarrow k\). Similarly we can show that \(k\longrightarrow i\).
Combining \(i \longrightarrow k, \hspace {0.2cm} k \longrightarrow i\, \implies \, i\longleftrightarrow k\). □

Theorem 3.4.2 (Partitioning of States into Classes). Two states which communicate belong to the same classes.

If all the states of a Markov chain fall in one class, the chain is called irreducible.

Proof. Write \(i \leftrightarrow j\) when \(i\) and \(j\) communicate, meaning \(p_{ij}^{(m)}>0\) and \(p_{ji}^{(n)}>0\) for some \(m,n\). The classes are the equivalence classes of this relation, so it is enough to check it is an equivalence relation.

Reflexive: \(p_{ii}^{(0)}=1\), so \(i\leftrightarrow i\). Symmetric: immediate from the definition, which is symmetric in \(i\) and \(j\). Transitive: suppose \(i\leftrightarrow j\) and \(j\leftrightarrow k\), with \(p_{ij}^{(m)}>0\) and \(p_{jk}^{(n)}>0\). By the Chapman–Kolmogorov equation, \[p_{ik}^{(m+n)} = \sum _{r} p_{ir}^{(m)}p_{rk}^{(n)} \geq p_{ij}^{(m)}p_{jk}^{(n)} > 0,\] the inequality because every term of the sum is non-negative and \(r=j\) is one of them. The same argument in the other direction gives \(p_{ki}^{(\cdot )}>0\), so \(i\leftrightarrow k\).

Hence communication partitions the state space, and two communicating states lie in the same class. □

Remark. The one-line inequality \(p_{ik}^{(m+n)}\geq p_{ij}^{(m)}p_{jk}^{(n)}\) is worth keeping: it is Chapman–Kolmogorov used not as an identity but as a bound, by retaining a single term of the sum, and most arguments about communication are this inequality applied twice.

Example 3.4.3. Partition the states of Markov chain with the following transition matrix into classes

(i)
\(\bordermatrix {~ & E_0 & E_1 & E_2\cr 0 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2} & 0\cr 1 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4}\cr 2 & 0 & \frac {1}{3} & \frac {2}{3}\cr }\)     \(\begin {matrix} E_0 \, \longleftrightarrow E_1\\ E_1 \, \longleftrightarrow E_2\\ E_0 \,\longleftrightarrow E_2\\ E_0 \longrightarrow E_1 \longrightarrow E_2 \end {matrix}\) The the chain is irreducible.
(ii).
\(P = \bordermatrix {~ & E_0 & E_1 & E_2 & E_3\cr E_0 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2} & 0 & 0\cr E_1 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2} & 0 & 0\cr E_2 & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4}\cr E_3 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\cr }\) \[E_0 \longleftrightarrow E_1, \hspace {0.3cm} E_0\nrightarrow E_2, \hspace {0.3cm} E_1 \nrightarrow E_2\]

\[C_1 = \{E_0, E_1\}\, , \hspace {0.4cm} C_2 = \{E_3\}\, , \hspace {0.4cm} C_3 = \{E_2\}.\]

A state is called absorbing if at any step the chain is in that state then it remains there at all subsequent steps.

In this example state \(E_3\) is an absorbing state.

Theorem 3.4.4 (Types of States). Let \(f_{ii}\) denote the probability that starting from state \(i\), the chain will ever reenter state \(i\).

If \(f_{ii} = 1\), state \(i\) is called recurrent.
If \(f_{ii} < 1\), state \(i\) is called transient.

Proof. Let \(N\) be the number of returns to \(i\), counting the visits after time zero. Each time the chain is at \(i\) it returns again with probability \(f_{ii}\) and never returns with probability \(1-f_{ii}\), independently of the past by the Markov property and time homogeneity. So \(N\) is geometric: \[P(N = n) = f_{ii}^{\,n}\left (1-f_{ii}\right ),\qquad n=0,1,2,\dots \]

If \(f_{ii}<1\) then \(P(N=\infty )=0\) and \(E(N) = f_{ii}/(1-f_{ii})<\infty \), so the chain returns only finitely often: state \(i\) is transient. If \(f_{ii}=1\) then every trial succeeds, \(N=\infty \) with probability one, and the chain returns infinitely often: state \(i\) is recurrent. □

Note. Since \(N\) counts returns, \(E(N) = \sum _{n\geq 1}p_{ii}^{(n)}\), so the dichotomy can be read straight off the transition probabilities: \(i\) is recurrent exactly when \(\sum _n p_{ii}^{(n)}\) diverges. That is the form used to settle the random walks later in this chapter, where the sum is estimated rather than the return probability computed directly.

Example 3.4.5. Consider a Markov chain with the following transition matrix \[P =\bordermatrix {~ & E_0 & E_1 & E_2 & E_3 & E_4 & E_5\cr E_0 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\cr E_1 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {3}{4} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\cr E_2 & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4} & 0 & 0\cr E_3 & \frac {1}{4} & 0 & \frac {1}{4} & \frac {1}{4} & 0 & \frac {1}{4}\cr E_4 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2}\cr E_5 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2}\cr }\] Let \(f_{ij}^{(n)}\) be the probability that chain visits state \(j\) first time at steps \(n\) given that it started from state \(i\).

Computing \(f_{11}\).

Clearly \(\, f_{11} = \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 1} f_{11}^n\) \[f^{(1)}_{11} = \frac {3}{4}\] \(f_{11}^{(2)}:\hspace {0.5cm} E_1\, \longrightarrow \, E_0\, \longrightarrow \, E_1\) \[f^{(2)}_{11} = \frac {1}{4}\cdot \frac {1}{2}\] \(f^{(3)}_{11}:\hspace {0.5cm} E_1 \longrightarrow \, E_0\, \longrightarrow \, E_0\, \longrightarrow \, \longrightarrow E_1\) \[f_{11}^{(3)} = \frac {1}{4}\cdot \frac {1}{2}\cdot \frac {1}{2}\] \(f_{11}^{(4)}:\hspace {0.5cm} E_1 \longrightarrow \, E_0 \, \longrightarrow \, E_0 \longrightarrow E_0 \, \longrightarrow E_1\)
\[f_{11}^{(4)} = \dfrac {1}{4}\, \left (\dfrac {1}{2}\right )^{2}\, \dfrac {1}{2}\]

Therefore \[f^{(n)}_{11} = \frac {1}{4}\, \left (\frac {1}{2}\right )^{n - 2}\, \frac {1}{2}.\] \begin {align*} f_11 & = \frac {3}{4} + \frac {1}{8}\cdot \frac {1}{1 - \frac {1}{2}}\\ & = \frac {3}{4} + \frac {1}{4}\\ & = 1. \end {align*}

Hence state \(E_1\) is recurrent. \[f_{11}^{(n)} , \, \hspace {0.4cm} n = 1, \, 2, \, \cdots \cdots \] forms a probability function.

Mean Recurrence time of state \(E_1\) \begin {align*} \mu _1 & = \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 1}n\, f_{11}^{(n)}\\ & = \frac {1}{8}\, \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 1} n\, \left (\frac {1}{2}\right )^{n - 2}\\ & = \frac {1}{2}\, \sum _{n =1}^{\infty } n\, \left (\frac {1}{2}\right )^n\\ & = \frac {1}{4}\, \frac {1}{\left (1 - \frac {1}{2}\right )^2}\\ & = 1. \end {align*}

Proposition 3.4.6. A state \(i\) is recurrent if \(\sum ^{\infty }_{n = 1} P^n_{ii} = \infty .\)

Proof. Define a random variable \(I_n\) as follows \[ I_n = \begin {cases} 1 & \text {if}\hspace {0.3cm} X_n = i\\ 0 & \text {if} \hspace {0.3cm} X_n \neq i\\ \end {cases}\] Hence \(\sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} I_n\) represents total visits to state \(E_i\). \[E\left [\sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} I_n \Big | X_0 = i\right ] = \infty \] if \(E_1\) i recurrent. \begin {align*} E\left [\sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} I_n\, \Big |\, X_0 = i\right ] & = \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} \left [E(I_n /X_0 = i)\right ]\\ & = \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} \left [1\times P(I_n = 1\, / X_0 = 0) + 0\times P(I_n = 0/X_0 = i)\right ]\\ & = \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} P(X_n = i/ X_0 = i)\\ & = \sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} P^n_{ii} \end {align*}

But \(E\left [\sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} I_n \, \Big |\, X_0 = i\right ] = \infty \) \[\sum ^{\infty }_{n = 0} P^n_{ii} = \infty .\] □

Proposition 3.4.7. In a finite states Markov chain not all states can be transient.

Proof. Consider a Markov chain with State Space \(\{0, \, 1, \, \cdots \, , \, m\}\). If possible assume all states are transient. Then the chain will visit State 0 in \(T_0\) steps , 1 then transit into State 1 and remains there at \(T_1\) steps and transit to \(T_2\) and so hence after a finite number of steps no state will be visited which is a contradiction. Hence atleast one state is recurrent in a Markov chain which has finite number of states. □

Corollary 3.4.8. If state \(i\) is recurrent and State \(i\) and \(j\) communicate then State \(j\) i is also recurrent.

Proof. Since State \(i\) is recurrent, \(\sum _nP^n_{ii} = \infty \). Also \(i\longleftrightarrow j\), therefore \(\exists \) non negative integers \(m\) and \(k\) such that \[P^{m}_{ij} > 0\hspace {0.5cm} , \hspace {0.5cm} P^k_{ji} > 0\] \begin {align*} P^{k+n+m}_{jj} & = \sum ^{\infty }_{r =0} P^k_{ir}\, P^n_{rr}\, P^m_{rj}\\ & > P^k_{ji}\, P^n_{ii}\, P^m_{ij} \end {align*}

Therefore \begin {align*} \sum _{n} P^{k + n + m}_{jj} & > \sum _n P^k_{ji}\, P^n_{ii}\, P^m_{ij}\\ & = P^k_{ji}\, P^m_{ij}\, \sum _n P^n_{ii}\\ & = \infty . \end {align*} □

Hence we conclude the following

(i)
Recurrence is class property. i.e if one State in a class is recurrent, then all other States in the same class will also be recurrent.

In particular if one state in an irreducible Markov chain is recurrent, then all the States of the Markov chain will be recurrent.

Example 3.4.9. Identify the States of the Markov chain with the following transition matrix \[\begin {pmatrix} 0 & 0 & \frac {1}{2} & \frac {1}{2}\\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\ \end {pmatrix}\] It is an irreducible chain.

Questions on this section

Stuck on something here? Ask below and it stays attached to this topic.