The Amit-Ashurst conjecture for finite metacyclic p-groups

Abstract: The Amit conjecture about word maps on finite nilpotent groups has been shown to hold for certain classes of groups. The generalised Amit conjecture says that the probability of an element occurring in the image of a word map on a finite nilpotent group G is either 0, or at least 1/|G|. Noting the work of Ashurst, we name the generalised Amit conjecture the Amit-Ashurst conjecture and show that the Amit-Ashurst conjecture holds for finite p-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup.

\section{Introduction}

Recall that a word $w$ in $k$ variables is an element of some free group $\textbf{F}_k=
\langle x_1,\dots,x_k\rangle$. The word $w$ induces a word map on a finite group~$G$, which by abuse of notation we write as
\[
w:G^k\rightarrow G,
\]
where $G^k$ denotes the direct product of $k$ copies of~$G$. This map induces a probability distribution $P_{w,G}$ on $G$, where for $g\in G$,
\[
P_{w,G}(g) = \frac{\big|\{(g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k \mid w(g_1,\ldots,g_k)=g \}\big|}{|G|^k}.
\]
We also write
\[
N_{w,G}(g)=\big|\{(g_1,\dots,g_k)\in G^k \mid w(g_1,\ldots,g_k)=g\}\big|,
\]
or simply $N_w(g)$ when the group is clear.

 We denote by $G_w$ the set of word values of $w$ in~$G$, i.e. the set of elements $g\in G$ such that the equation $w=g$ has a solution in $G^k$. Additionally, the \textit{fibre} of $g$ in $G^k$ is
\[
\{(g_1,\ldots, g_k)\in G^k\mid w(g_1,\ldots, g_k)=g\}.
\]

Nikolov and Segal~\cite[Thm.~1.3]{NikolovSegal}
gave a characterisation of finite nilpotent groups (and of finite solvable
groups) based on the probability function~$P_{w,G}$:
A finite group~$G$ is nilpotent if and only if the values $P_{w,G}(g)$ are bounded away from zero as $g$ ranges over~$G_w$ and $w$ ranges over all group words. The bound is quite small; of the order $p^{-|G|}$ where $p$ is the largest prime divisor of~$G$.

This bound has been improved in some cases. For example, it is easy to show that for an abelian group $G$, a word $w$ and $g$  in $G_w$, then $P_{w,G}(g)\ge |G|^{-1}$, since any word map is a homomorphism over an abelian group. Additionally,    Ashurst \cite[Ch.~4]{ashurst} showed that the nilpotent dihedral groups and the generalised quaternion groups also satisfy this property. In this direction, Ashurst conjectured the following in her thesis \cite[Conj.~6.2.1]{ashurst}, which we call the Amit--Ashurst conjecture:

\begin{conjecture}[Amit--Ashurst]
Let $G$ be a finite nilpotent group. Then
\[
P_{w,G}(g) \ge |G|^{-1},
\]
where $w$ ranges over all words and $g\in G_w$.
\end{conjecture}

The Amit--Ashurst conjecture is a generalisation of the Amit conjecture which asks whether for a finite nilpotent group $G$, the probability distribution induced by the word $w$ satisfies $P_{w,G}(1)\geq |G|^{-1}$ for all $w$.  We note that for all groups $G$, and all $g \in G$, the word $w = x$ satisfies $P_{w,G}(g)=|G|^{-1}.$ Hence, the bound proposed in the Amit--Ashurst conjecture is strict. The Amit--Ashurst conjecture first appeared as the generalised Amit conjecture in~\cite{CIT}. However, since Ashurst first asked the question, we believe the term Amit--Ashurst conjecture is more appropriate.

Not much progress has been made on the Amit conjecture, or the Amit--Ashurst conjecture. Since a finite nilpotent group is a direct product of its Sylow
subgroups, we note that it suffices to consider finite $p$-groups for either of these conjectures. It is known that class 2 groups satisfy the Amit conjecture  \cite{ainhoa,levy} as do split metacyclic groups   \cite[Prop.~1.3]{levy}. However, besides the examples given by Ashurst, there were no other families of groups known to satisfy the Amit--Ashurst conjecture. In this paper we show that the Amit--Ashurst conjecture holds for finite $p$-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup. Formally our theorem is:

\begin{prevtheorem}\label{thm:main}
For $p$ a prime, let $G$ be a finite $p$-group with a cyclic maximal subgroup. Then for any word $w$ and $g\in G_w$ we have that $P_{w,G}(g) \geq |G|^{-1}$.
\end{prevtheorem}

Our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} is broken into two parts. First we show that word maps with large images have well-behaved probability distributions on a larger family of finite metacyclic $p$-groups. Then, recalling the classification of finite $p$-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup, we show that word maps with minimal nontrivial image have appropriately behaved probability distributions.

\medskip

\noindent
\textit{Notation.}
Throughout, we  use left-normed commutators, for example, $[x,y,z] = [[x,y],z]$. Furthermore we define $[x,y]=xyx^{-1}y^{-1}$.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements} We thank Ainhoa Iniguez for her initial involvement in the project. This collaboration was initiated at a Functor Categories for Groups meeting, which was supported by a London Mathematical Society Joint Research Group grant.

\section{Word Maps over  Metacyclic Groups}

Our basic set up is $G = AB$ is a finite $p$-group, where $A \trianglelefteq G$ with $A$ and $B$
both cyclic. We write $Z$ for the unique subgroup of order~$p$ in~$A$. As
suggested by the notation, the subgroup~$Z$ is central.

As often is the case for nilpotent groups, we would like to prove  the Amit--Ashurst conjecture by taking the  quotient by~$Z$
(or any other normal subgroup) and looking at~$G/Z$. Assuming by induction that $P_{w,G/Z}(gZ)$ is at least $|G/Z|^{-1}$, then one would hope that the probability distributes over the coset $gZ$ nicely. This does not work in general, but is an illustrative technique.

First we document a general instance where this idea works.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:induction}
Let $G$ be a group and $N$ a normal subgroup such that $G/N$
satisfies the Amit--Ashurst conjecture. Suppose $w$ is a word in $k$ variables and $g \in G_w$ is such that $N_w(gn) = N_w(g)$ for all $n \in N$. Then $N_w(g) \geq |G|^{k-1}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Let $w$ be a word in $k$
variables. Write $\overline{G} = G/N$ and we will use the bar notation for elements in~$\overline{G}$. A simple
counting argument, see \cite[page 20]{ashurst}, shows that
$$
N_{w,G/N}(\bar{g}) = \sum_{n \in N} N_{w,G}(gn)\cdot  |N|^{-k}.$$ By
assumption $N_{w, G/N}(\bar{g}) \geq |G/N|^{k-1}$. Thus
$$
N_{w,G}(g)\cdot |N|^{-(k-1)} \geq |G/N|^{k-1}$$ and the result follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:dichotomy} Let $G$ be a finite $p$-group, such that $G = AB$, where $A\trianglelefteq G$ and both
$A$ and $B$ are cyclic. Let $w$ be a word. If $b^p\in A$ for all $b\in B$, then one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item $G_w = G$
    \item $G_w\subseteq A$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By Hall's collection process, note that $w = x_1^{e_1}\cdots x_\ell^{e_\ell} \kappa$ for some $\ell\in\mathbb{N}\cup\{0\}$, $e_1,\ldots,e_\ell\in\mathbb{Z}$ and word~$\kappa$ that is a product of commutators. Since $G/A$ is cyclic, we see that
$G' \le A$. Hence the image of~$\kappa$ is contained in~$A$. Let $d=\gcd{(e_1,\dots,e_\ell)}$. Since $b^p \in A$, if $p\mid d$ then the image is entirely contained in $A$; otherwise, we have $(p,d)= 1$ and $w$ is a surjective map.
\end{proof}

In particular, if $G_w = G$ then the Amit--Ashurst conjecture follows from \cite[Lem.~7]{CockeHo2}. Therefore, for the rest of this section we consider the case when $G_w \subset G$.

Let $G = AB$ be a finite $p$-group, where $A \trianglelefteq G$ with $A$ and $B$
both cyclic. For ${\bf{b}} = (b_1, \ldots , b_k)\in B^k$, we consider the coset $\mathbf{b}A^k$ in~$G^k$.
Recall that $A$ is normal in~$G$ and as $A=\langle a\rangle$ is cyclic, the cyclic subgroup $B=\langle b\rangle$ acts
on~$A$ by powers, i.e. $bab^{-1}=a^\ell$ for some $\ell\in\mathbb{Z}$. Hence
over the coset~$\mathbf{b}A^k$,
a
word~$w$ acts as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:splitting}
w(a_1b_1, \ldots , a_kb_k) = v_{w,{\bf{b}}}(a_1, \ldots , a_k)w({\bf{b}}) = w_{{\bf{b}}}(a_1, \ldots , a_k),
\end{equation}
where $v_{w,{\bf{b}}}$ is a word map over $A$ and $w_{{\bf{b}}}$ is $v_{w,{\bf{b}}}$ times $b^i$ for some~$i$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:intersection-in-Z}
Let $G$ be a finite $p$-group, such that $G = AB$, where $A\trianglelefteq G$ and both
$A$ and $B$ are cyclic. Let $Z$ be the unique subgroup of order $p$ in $A$. Suppose
that $A\cap B \le Z$
and that $G/Z$ satisfies the Amit--Ashurst conjecture. Then any word $w$ such that
\[
G_w \not\subseteq Z\quad  \text{and}\quad G_w \subseteq A,
\]
 has $Z \subsetneq G_w$ and satisfies $P_{w,G}(g) \ge |G|^{-1}$ for all $g \in G_w$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 For ${\bf{b}} = (b_1, \ldots , b_k)\in B^k$, we have from~\eqref{eq:splitting} that
\[
w(a_1b_1,  \ldots , a_kb_k) = v_{w,\bf{b}}(a_1, \ldots , a_k)w({\bf{b}}).
\]
As $G_w\subseteq A$, we observe that $w(\mathbf{b})\in Z$. Also, as $A$ is abelian $v_{w,\bf{b}} : A^k \rightarrow A$ is a homomorphism
with image, $A_{v_{w,\bf{b}}}$, a subgroup of $A$ and all fibres of $v_{w,\bf{b}}$ are of the same size. Note $A_{v_{w,\bf{b}}}$ is either trivial or contains $Z$, in the second case  $A_{v_{w,\bf{b}}}$ is a union of cosets of $Z$. Thus for any $g \in G_w \backslash Z$ and any fixed ${\bf{b}}$ it follows that
$N_{ v_{w,\bf{b}}}(g) =  N_{ v_{w,\bf{b}}}(gz) \leq   N_{ v_{w,\bf{b}}}(z)$ for all $z \in Z$, with the inequality coming from the case when
$g \not\in  A_{v_{w,\bf{b}}}w({\bf{b}})$ but $z \in  A_{v_{w,\bf{b}}}w({\bf{b}})$.
Summing over the $\bf{b}$, gives $N_w(g) = N_w(gz) \leq N_w(z)$.

We can now proceed by induction.
Let $\overline{G} = G/Z$ (note $Z$ is central in $G$). Suppose
$g \in G_w \backslash Z$. By hypothesis $N_w(\bar{g}) \geq |\overline{G}|^{k-1}$.
By the previous paragraph $N_w(g) = N_w(gz)$ for all $z \in Z$ and by Lemma~\ref{lem:induction} it follows that
$N_{w}(g) \geq |G|^{k-1}$. Furthermore, as $N_w(z) \geq N_w(g)$ for all $z \in Z$, both the results follow.
\end{proof}

\section{The Polynomial Argument}
The previous section was largely inspired by Levy~\cite{levy}. The impetus for this section originates in Ashurst's dissertation and together with Lemma \ref{lem:intersection-in-Z} can be used to prove the Amit--Ashurst conjecture for certain metacyclic $p$-groups ~\cite{ashurst}. Recall that Lemma~\ref{lem:intersection-in-Z} completes the idealised inductive proof of the Amit--Ashurst conjecture for finite metacyclic $p$-groups, except for the case when $1\ne G_w\subseteq Z$. To handle this case we consider the following argument.

Let $G$ be a finite nonabelian metacyclic $p$-group. Then from~\cite{King} the group~$G$ can be represented as
$$G = \langle a, b \mid a^{p^n} = 1, \, b^{p^m} = a^{p^{n- \epsilon}}, \,bab^{-1} = a^r \rangle$$
where $r =p^{n - \delta} + 1$ or $r = p^{n - \delta} -1$ (called positive and negative type respectively) for $n,m\in\mathbb{N}$ and $\epsilon,\delta\in\{0,1,\ldots,n\}$ such that $p^n$ divides both ${p^{n-\epsilon}}(r-1)$ and $r^{p^m}-1$.
Also, if $b^{p^{n-1}} =1$,  note using $b^{\beta}a^{\alpha} = a^{\alpha r^{\beta}}b^{\beta}$ for $0\le \alpha<p^n$ and $0 \leq \beta < p^m$, we get
\begin{equation}
    \label{eq:useful}
(a^{\alpha}b^{\beta})^{p^{n-1}} = a^{\alpha(1 + r^{\beta} + r^{2\beta} + \cdots + r^{(p^{n-1} - 1)\beta})},
\end{equation}
which will be of later use.

Suppose that a word $w$ maps $G$ to $Z = \langle a^{p^{n-1}} \rangle$, the unique central subgroup of order~$p$ in~$\langle a \rangle$.
So we have
$$
w (a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_k} b^{\beta_k}) = (a^{p^{n-1}}) ^{f(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta})}
$$
for some function $f:{\mathbb F}_{p^n}^k \times {\mathbb F}_{p^m}^k \rightarrow {\mathbb F}_p$ where $\boldsymbol{\alpha} = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_k)$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}= (\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_k)$ with $0 \leq \alpha_i < p^{n}$ and $0 \leq \beta_i < p^m$.

Suppose for now that we can replace
$f$ with a polynomial $q: {\mathbb F}_p^k \times {\mathbb F}_p^k \rightarrow {\mathbb F}_p$.

We note the following useful result.

\begin{theorem}[Chevalley-Warning]\cite[Thm.~6.11]{LidlNiederreiter}\label{thm:Chevalley-Warning}
Let $p$ be a prime, let $\ell\in\mathbb{N}$ and let $\widetilde{q}\in\mathbb{F}_p[t_1,\ldots,t_\ell]$ be a polynomial with $d:=\deg(\widetilde{q})<\ell$. If the number $N$ of $(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_\ell)\in\mathbb{F}_p^\ell$ with  $\widetilde{q}(\alpha_1,	\ldots,\alpha_\ell)=0$  satisfies $N\ge 1$, then $N\ge p^{\ell-d}$.
\end{theorem}

For the purposes of the Amit--Ashurst conjecture, we aim to apply the Chevalley-Warning Theorem to some of the polynomials
$$
\widetilde{q}_i(t_1,\ldots,t_{2k})=q(t_1,\ldots,t_{2k})-i\qquad \text{for each }i\in\mathbb{F}_p;
$$
in this setting, the number of variables is $\ell=2k$.
In order to
do so, we will  first need that
${\rm deg}(q) <2k$. Either this holds, or if not we can replace $w$ with
$\widehat{w}(x_1, \ldots, x_{\mu}) = w(x_1, \ldots, x_k)$ where $\mu > k$. We note that, as a word map, the word $\widehat{w}$ sends $(g_1,\ldots,g_{\mu})$ to $w(g_1,\ldots,g_k)$. Hence  $\widehat{w}$ has the same image as $w$ and
also each element in the image has the same probability of occurring since $x_{k+1}, \ldots, x_{\mu}$ can take any value in $G$.

Next, as we will see below, we need a sharper upper bound on ${\rm deg}(q)$.
Write $c$ for the nilpotency class of~$G$. We suppose for now that $\deg(q)\le c$, and as seen in the previous paragraph we may assume that $2k> c$.

 To summarise, we suppose
$$
w (a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_k} b^{\beta_k}) = (a^{p^{n-1}}) ^{q(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}})}
$$
for some polynomial $q: {\mathbb F}_p^k \times {\mathbb F}_p^k \rightarrow {\mathbb F}_p$, where $\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \equiv \boldsymbol{\alpha} \pmod p$ and $\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \equiv \boldsymbol{\beta} \pmod p$,
 with $\deg(q)\le c<2k$. Suppose $G_w=\{(a^{p^{n-1}})^i\mid i\in I\}\subseteq Z$, for some subset $I\subseteq \mathbb{F}_p$.
Note that for each $i\in I$, the equation
 $q(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}})=i$ has at least one solution.
 For each $i\in I$, we set $\widetilde{q}_i(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}})=q(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}})-i$.
 Consequently, by Theorem~\ref{thm:Chevalley-Warning}, for any $g\in Z$, the set of solutions for $w=g$ (as seen as a word in~$k$ variables) is of size at least $p^{k(n-1)}\cdot p^{k(m-1)}\cdot p^{2k-c}$. Indeed, recalling that
 $$G = \langle a, b \mid a^{p^n} = 1, \, b^{p^m} = a^{p^{n- \epsilon}}, \,bab^{-1} = a^r \rangle,$$
 for each solution $(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}})$ of~$\widetilde{q}_i$, where $i\in I$ is such that $g=(a^{p^{n-1}})^i$, we have $p^{k(n-1)}$ choices for $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ with $\boldsymbol{\alpha} \equiv \overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \pmod p$ and $p^{k(m-1)}$ choices for $\boldsymbol{\beta}$ with $\boldsymbol{\beta} \equiv \overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \pmod p$. Hence,
\[
P_{G,w}(g)\ge \frac{p^{k(n-1)}\cdot p^{k(m-1)}\cdot p^{ 2k-c}}{p^{k(n-1)}\cdot p^{k(m-1)}\cdot p^{2k}}=\frac{1}{p^{c}}>|G|^{-1},
\]
which gives us the Amit--Ashurst bound for the case $1\ne G_w\subseteq Z$.

Therefore it remains to determine the instances when we can  replace
$f(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta})$ with a polynomial $q: {\mathbb F}_p^k \times {\mathbb F}_p^k \rightarrow {\mathbb F}_p$ of degree at most~$c$.
This will be done in the next section, but we record here some key results for our goal.

Recall from Hall's collecting process above that
$$w(x_1, \ldots, x_k) = x_1^{e_1} \cdots x_k^{e_k} \kappa(x_1,\ldots,x_k)$$
where $ \kappa(x_1,\ldots,x_k) \in \textbf{F}_k'$ and $e_1,\ldots,e_k\in\mathbb{Z}$. As $w$ maps to $Z$ we have $p^{n-1}$ divides~$e_i$, for $1\le i\le k$. Next, since $G$ is metabelian
we only need
to consider the basic commutators $\gamma_{\ell}(g_1, \ldots, g_{\ell}) = [g_1, g_2, \ldots, g_{\ell}]$ for $\ell\ge 2$.
Thus we now analyse the commutator structure of~$G$,
remembering that we define a commutator
$[g,h]$ as $ghg^{-1}h^{-1}$. As any element in~$G$ can be written as $a^{\alpha_i} b^{\beta_j}$ for some
$0 \leq \alpha_i < p^n$ and $0 \leq \beta_j < p^m$, we introduce the following notation: for $\ell\ge 2$,
$$
\gamma_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = [a^{\alpha_1}b^{\beta_1}, a^{\alpha_2} b^{\beta_2}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_{\ell}} b^{\beta_{\ell}}]
= a^{q_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})}
$$
for $\boldsymbol{\alpha} = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{\ell})$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}= (\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_{\ell})$, where $q_\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha},\boldsymbol{\beta})$ is some function in $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta}$.
Note our abuse of notation where if $\boldsymbol{\alpha} = (\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_t)$ and $\boldsymbol{\beta} = (\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_t)$ and $\ell <t$ then
$q_\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = q_\ell((\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_{\ell}), (\beta_1. \ldots, \beta_{\ell}))$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:metacyclic} In the set-up above, suppose $G$ is a metacyclic $p$-group with
$$
G = \langle a, b\mid a^{p^n} = 1,\, b^{p^m} = a^{p^{n- \epsilon}},\, bab^{-1} = a^r \rangle.
$$
Then
$$
q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha} , \boldsymbol{\beta}) = \alpha_1(1-r^{\beta_2}) - \alpha_2(1-r^{\beta_1})
$$
and
$$
q_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})(1-r^{\beta_3}) \cdots (1-r^{\beta_{\ell}})$$
for $\ell \geq 3$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
As $ba = a^rb$ it follows that $b^{\beta} a^{\alpha} = a^{\alpha r^{\beta}}b^{\beta}$. Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
[a^{\alpha_1}b^{\beta_1}, a^{\alpha_2}b^{\beta_2}] & = & a^{\alpha_1}b^{\beta_1} a^{\alpha_2}b^{\beta_2} b^{-\beta_1}a^{-\alpha_1}{b^{-\beta_2}
a^{-\alpha_2}} \\
& = & a^{\alpha_1} a^{\alpha_2r^{\beta_1}}a^{-\alpha_1r^{\beta_2}}a^{-\alpha_2} \\
& = & a^{\alpha_1(1 - r^{\beta_2}) - \alpha_2(1 - r^{\beta_1})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This gives the expression for $q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})$. We then proceed by induction. Suppose $\ell \geq 3$. We have
\begin{align*}
\gamma_\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) & =  [a^{q_{\ell-1}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})}, a^{\alpha_\ell} b^{\beta_\ell} ] \\       & =  a^{q_{\ell-1}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})(1 - r^{\beta_\ell})}.\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

We can apply the lemma in various different cases.

\begin{lemma}\label{Lem:dihedral-quaternion}
Suppose $G$ is a metacyclic 2-group of one of the following types:
$$
G = \langle a,b \mid a^{2^n} = 1,\, b^{2^m} = a^{2^{n-1}},\, bab^{-1}= a^{-1} \rangle
$$
or
$$
G = \langle a,b \mid a^{2^n} = b^{2^m} =1,\, bab^{-1}  = a^{-1}\rangle.
$$
Then for $\ell\ge 2$,
$$
q_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha} , \boldsymbol{\beta}) = 2^{\ell-1}  \bar{\beta}_{\ell} \cdots \bar{\beta}_3(\alpha_1 \bar{\beta}_2 - \alpha_2 \bar{\beta}_1)
$$
where $\bar{\beta}_i \equiv \beta_i \pmod 2$ and $\bar{\beta}_i\in \mathbb{F}_2$ for $1\le i\le\ell$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We apply Lemma~\ref{lem:metacyclic} with $r = -1$ (equivalently $r = 2^n -1$).  So
$$
q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = \alpha_1 (1 - (-1)^{\beta_2}) - \alpha_2(1 - (-1)^{\beta_1}) =
2(\alpha_1 \bar{\beta}_2 - \alpha_2 \bar{\beta}_1),
$$
and
\[
q_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = q_{\ell-1}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})(1 - (-1)^{\beta_{\ell}}) = 2\bar{\beta}_{\ell}\cdot q_{\ell-1}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}). \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

In particular the above lemma can be applied to dihedral groups  (when $b^2 =1$) and generalised
quaternion groups (when $b^2 = a^{2^{n-1}}$);   in these cases
$\bar{\beta_i} = \beta_i$.

The following lemma considers semidihedral groups.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:semidihedral}
Let $G = \langle a,b\mid a^{2^{n}} = b^2 =1,\, bab^{-1} = a^{2^{n-1} -1} \rangle$ for $n\ge 2$. Then for $\ell\ge 2$,
$$
q_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = 2^{\ell-1} (1 - 2^{n-2})^{\ell-1} \beta_3 \cdots \beta_{\ell}(\alpha_1 \beta_2 - \alpha_2 \beta_1).
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} Here we apply Lemma~\ref{lem:metacyclic} with $r = 2^{n-1} -1$, and we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
q_2 (\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) & = & \alpha_1(1 - (2^{n-1} - 1)^{\beta_2}) - \alpha_2(1-(2^{n-1} -1)^{\beta_1}) \\
 & = & (2 - 2^{n-1})(\alpha_1\beta_2 - \alpha_2 \beta_1)
\end{eqnarray*}
and for $\ell > 2$
\begin{align*}
q_{\ell}(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) & =  q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) (1- (2^{n-1} - 1)^{\beta_3}) \cdots (1- (2^{n-1} -1)^{\beta_{\ell}})\\
                    & =  (2 - 2^{n-1})^{\ell-1}\beta_3 \cdots \beta_{\ell}(\alpha_1 \beta_2 - \alpha_2 \beta_1). \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

Note that in the above result, we have $\beta_\ell\in\mathbb{F}_2$ since $b$ has order~2.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:class-2} Suppose $G$ is a metacyclic $p$-group with
$$
G = \langle a, b\mid a^{p^n} = 1, \,b^{p^m} = a^{p^{n- \epsilon}}, \,bab^{-1} = a^{1 + p^{n-1}} \rangle.
$$
Then either $\epsilon=0$
or $G\cong Q_8$.

Furthermore,
$$
q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}) = p^{n-1}(\alpha_2 \beta_1 - \alpha_1 \beta_2).
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} For the first claim, we observe that $G$ is of class 2. The claim now follows from \cite[Thm.~1.1]{beuerle}. For the second claim, we proceed as above, noting  that $a^{p^{n}}=1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{rmk:split}
For a group $G$ as in the above lemma, when $p$ is odd and if $m=1$ (equivalently, if $G$ is a nonabelian $p$-group of order~$p^{n+1}$ with an element $a$ of order~$p^{n}$, for an odd prime $p$), then it follows from \cite[Thm.~7.18]{Roman}
that $G$ is a semidirect product of $\langle a \rangle$ and $\langle b \rangle$ where $o(b) = p$ and $a^b = a^{1+p^{n-1}}$.
\end{remark}

\section{The Amit--Ashurst Conjecture for finite $p$-groups with cyclic maximal subgroups}

A nonabelian finite $p$-group $G$ has a cyclic maximal subgroup if and only if there are cyclic subgroups $A$ and $B$ with $A\trianglelefteq G$, the product $AB = G$, and $|G:A| = p$. There are 5 such families of $p$-groups
\cite[Thm.~5.4.4]{Gorenstein}.

\subsection*{The nonabelian 2-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup are:}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item the generalised quaternion group
    $$
    Q_{2^{n+1}} = \langle a, b \mid a^{2^{n}}=1,\, a^{2^{n-1}} = b^2,\, a^b = a^{-1} \rangle,\qquad\text{for $n\ge 2$,}
    $$
    \item the dihedral group
    $$
   \, D_{2^{n+1}}= \langle a,b \mid a^{2^{n}}= b^2=1, \,a^b = a^{-1}\rangle,\qquad\,\,\,\,\,\qquad\text{for $n\ge 2$,}
    $$
    \item the semidihedral group
    $$
    SD_{2^{n+1}} = \langle a, b\mid a^{2^{n}}= b^2=1,\, a^{b} = a^{2^{n-1}-1}\rangle,\quad\qquad\text{for $n\ge 3$,}
    $$
    \item the groups of the form
    $$
   \,\qquad G = \langle a, b \mid a^{2^{n}}= b^2=1,\, a^b = a^{2^{n-1}+1}\rangle, \quad\qquad\text{for $n\ge 2$}.
    $$
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{For an odd prime $p$, the nonabelian $p$-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup are:}
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[(5)] the groups of form
    $$
   \qquad G= \langle a, b \mid a^{p^{n}}= b^{p}=1,\, a^{b} = a^{p^{n-1}+1}\rangle, \!\quad\qquad\text{for $n\ge 2$}.
    $$
\end{enumerate}

In addition to differences between $2$ and odd primes, nonabelian finite $p$-groups with cyclic maximal subgroups can be broadly separated into two categories: those of class 2 and those of maximal class. The dihedral, generalised quaternions, and semidihedral groups have maximal class, while the other nonabelian finite $p$-groups with cyclic maximal subgroups have class~2. We observe that quotienting by the central subgroup of order~$p$ results in either a maximal class subgroup of smaller rank, or an abelian group. This allows us to use Lemma \ref{lem:intersection-in-Z}, assuming that the Amit--Ashurst conjecture holds for the quotient. We note that the Amit--Ashurst conjecture holds for all finite abelian groups.

\begin{proposition}\label{pr:polynomial}
For $p$ a prime, let $G$ be a finite $p$-group with a cyclic maximal subgroup. Then, for any word $w$ such that
$1\ne G_w\subseteq Z$, where $Z$ is the minimal central subgroup of order~$p$, we have
 $P_{w,G}(g) \ge |G|^{-1}$ for all $g \in G_w$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $w$ is a word in $k$ variables such that $1\ne G_w\subseteq Z$. Then, using the argument and the notation from the previous section, it suffices to show that
$$
w (a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_k} b^{\beta_k}) = \big(a^{\frac{o(a)}{p}}\big) ^{q(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}},\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}})}
$$
for some polynomial $q: {\mathbb F}_p^k \times {\mathbb F}_p^k \rightarrow {\mathbb F}_p$ of degree at most the nilpotency class of~$G$, where $\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}} \equiv \boldsymbol{\alpha} \pmod p$ and $\overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}} \equiv \boldsymbol{\beta} \pmod p$.

Note from the above classification of finite $p$-groups with a cyclic maximal subgroup, we have that either
(1) $G$ is dihedral, (2) $G$ is generalised quaternion, (3) $G$ is semidihedral or
(4)-and-(5) $G = \langle a,b\mid a^{p^{n}} = b^p= 1, \,bab^{-1} = a^{1 + p^{n-1}}\rangle$.
In all cases $|G| = p^{n+1}$ and we are assuming our word $w$ maps to $\langle a^{p^{n-1}} \rangle$. Recall
$$
w(x_1, \ldots, x_k) = x_1^{e_1} \cdots x_k^{e_k} \cdot \kappa(x_1, \ldots, x_k).
$$
It follows that $p^{n-1}$ divides $e_i$.
Also using \eqref{eq:useful}, one can check that
\begin{align*}
    &(a^{\alpha_i} b^{\beta_i})^{p^{n-1}}
     &=\begin{cases}
     (a^{\alpha_i})^{2^{n-1}(1-\overline{\beta}_i)} & \text{if $G$ is of type (1), (2) or (3)}\\

    \big((a^{\alpha_i})^{p^{n-1}}\big)^{1+\overline{\beta}_i +2\overline{\beta}_i+\cdots +(p^{n-1}-1)\overline{\beta}_i}& \text{if $G$ is of type (4) or (5)}
    \end{cases}
\end{align*}
 where $\beta_i\equiv \overline{\beta}_i \pmod p$ and $\overline{\beta}_i\in \mathbb{F}_p$. Hence
$$
w(a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_k} b^{\beta_k})
= (a^{p^{n-1}})^{\rho(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, \overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}}  )} \cdot \kappa(a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_k} b^{\beta_k}),
$$
for some polynomial
$\rho: {\mathbb F}_p^k \times {\mathbb F}_p^k \rightarrow {\mathbb F}_p$ of degree at most~2.
 Recall also that the word~$\kappa$ is a product of basic commutators of length at most the nilpotency class of~$G$. Note $\kappa$ is of this form since $G$ is metabelian.
We consider
$$
\kappa(a^{\alpha_1} b^{\beta_1}, \ldots, a^{\alpha_k} b^{\beta_k})  = \prod_{j=2}^{n} \Gamma_j(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}),
$$
where $\Gamma_j(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})$ is the product of all basic commutators in~$j$ variables in the word~$\kappa$.
 Also, by abuse of  notation, we do not distinguish the fact that the effective set of variables for each of the maps $\rho$, $\kappa$ and all $\Gamma_j$ is some subset of the respective given set of variables.

If $G$ is of type (4) or (5),
only $\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})$ appears and the result follows since $q_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta} )$ is of the required form by Lemma~\ref{lem:class-2}.
In the remaining three cases, we have that $G$ is a 2-group. As
$G_w\subseteq\langle a^{2^{n-1}} \rangle$, we deduce that $ \Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})\in\langle a^{2^{n-1}}\rangle$ for all choices of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}$.
 Indeed, for $\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})$ to be nonzero, we need $\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2}$ and $\beta_{i_1},\beta_{i_2}$ to be nonzero, for some choice of distinct $i_1,i_2\in\{1,\ldots, k\}$; compare Lemmas~\ref{Lem:dihedral-quaternion} and~\ref{lem:semidihedral}, noting also that we may assume that $\beta_{i_1}=\beta_{i_2}=1$. For each fixed choice of such $i_1,i_2$ with $\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})\ne 0$, set $\alpha_i=\beta_i=0$ for all $i\in\{1,\ldots, k\}\backslash\{i_1,i_2\}$. It then follows that
 $ \Gamma_j(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})=1$ for all $j>2$. Next, suppose that $\Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})$ is a product of commutators of lengths $\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_d$ for some $d\in\mathbb{N}$ with $2\le \ell_1<\cdots<\ell_d\le n$; here $n$ is also the nilpotency class of~$G$.  For $2\le \ell\le n$,  it follows from Lemmas~\ref{Lem:dihedral-quaternion} and~\ref{lem:semidihedral}  that $2^{\ell-1}\mid q_\ell(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})$ for all $\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}$. Hence for our choice of $\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2}$ and $\beta_{i_1},\beta_{i_2}$, we have that
 \[
 \Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})=a^{(\alpha_{i_1}-\alpha_{i_2})\big(2^{\ell_1-1}\mu_1+\cdots+ 2^{\ell_d-1}\mu_d\big)}
 \]
 for some $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_d\in\mathbb{Z}$.
The condition $G_w\subseteq\langle a^{2^{n-1}} \rangle$ now implies that
\[
2^{\ell_1-1}\mu_1+\cdots+ 2^{\ell_d-1}\mu_d\equiv 0\pmod {2^{n-1}},
\]
and therefore $ \Gamma_2(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})= (a^{2^{n-1}})^{\overline{q}_2(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, \overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}} )}$ for some polynomial $\overline{q}_2$ of degree at most~$n$.
Repeating this argument recursively for increasing values of $j\ge 2$, we deduce that
$ \Gamma_j(\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta})= (a^{2^{n-1}})^{\overline{q}_j(\overline{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}, \overline{\boldsymbol{\beta}} )}$ for some polynomial $\overline{q}_j$ of degree at most~$n$, for all $2\le j\le n$ and all $\boldsymbol{\alpha}, \boldsymbol{\beta}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
It is worth pointing out that the condition $1\ne G_w\subseteq Z$ in Proposition~\ref{pr:polynomial} can be replaced with $G_w=Z$. Indeed, if $p=2$ then this is clear since $|Z|=2$. If $p$ is odd, the group~$G=AB$ is of type (5) and hence here $A\cap B=1$; compare Remark~\ref{rmk:split}. Therefore, by the same argument (and using the same notation as) in the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:intersection-in-Z}, it follows that $w(\mathbf{b})=1$ and hence $Z\le A_{v_{w,\mathbf{b}}}$.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:class-2}
For $p$ a prime, let $G$ be a  finite $p$-group  of nilpotency class 2 with a cyclic maximal subgroup.
 Then $G$ satisfies the Amit--Ashurst conjecture.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We can assume that $G$ is nonabelian and hence $|G| \ge 8$.

By the above classification, we have that $G$ is either the quaternion group~$Q_8$ or of type (4) or (5).
Since the centre $Z(G)$ is $\langle a^{p^{n-1}}\rangle$, which coincides with the  cyclic subgroup~$Z$ of~$A$ of order~$p$, the quotient $G/Z\cong C_{p^{n-1}}\times C_p$ is abelian.
Now Lemma~\ref{lem:dichotomy}, Lemma~\ref{lem:intersection-in-Z} and  Proposition~\ref{pr:polynomial} show that the Amit--Ashurst conjecture holds for~$G$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:max-class}
 Let $G$ be a maximal class $2$-group.
 Then $G$ satisfies the Amit--Ashurst conjecture.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
A maximal class $2$-group is contained in one of the following families: the dihedral groups; the generalised quaternion groups; or the semidihedral groups.  Likewise, noting that the quotient $G/Z$ is either of class~2 or isomorphic to a dihedral group, the result follows from  Lemma~\ref{lem:dichotomy}, Lemma~\ref{lem:intersection-in-Z}  and  Proposition~\ref{pr:polynomial}.
\end{proof}

Combining Theorems~\ref{thm:class-2} and \ref{thm:max-class} proves Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.


Expected Regularized Total Variation of Brownian Motion

Abstract: We introduce a notion of regularized total variation on an interval for continuous functions with unbounded variation. The definition of regularized total variation is obtained from that of total variation by subtracting a penalty for the size of the partition used to estimate the variation. We present an explicit construction of a partition achieving the regularized total variation, and use this construction to estimate the expected regularized total variation of Brownian motion on an interval.

\section{Introduction}

For a continuous function $f:[a,b]\to\mathbf{R}$, it is standard
to define the total variation
\begin{equation}
TV_{[a,b]}(f)=\sup_{k\ge0}TV_{[a,b],k}(f),\label{eq:tv}
\end{equation}
where
\[
TV_{[a,b],k}(f)=\max_{a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b}\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|.
\]
Note that $TV_{[a,b],k}(f)$ is an increasing function of $k$, so
we actually have
\[
TV_{[a,b]}(f)=\lim_{k\to\infty}TV_{[a,b],k}(f).
\]
If $TV(f)<\infty$, then one says that $f$ is of \emph{bounded variation},
which is to say that one cannot make $TV_{[a,b],k}(f)$ arbitrarily
large by increasing $k$. Conversely, if $f$ has unbounded variation,
then $TV_{[a,b],k}(f)$ grows arbitrarily large as $k\to\infty$.
To get a finer measurement of the oscillations of a function of unbounded
variation, then, we can penalize the growth of $k$ in the optimization
equation (\ref{eq:tv}). This leads us to define, for each $\lambda>0$,
the \emph{regularized total variation}
\begin{equation}
\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)=\sup_{k\ge0}(TV_{[a,b],k}(f)-\lambda k)=\sup_{k\ge0}\left(\max_{a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b}\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda k\right).\label{eq:phi}
\end{equation}
We use the term ``regularized'' because, if we think of the optimization
equation (\ref{eq:tv}) as attempting to find the piecewise linear
approximation to $f$ that captures as much of the oscillation of
$f$ as possible (although the supremum may of course not be achieved),
then the penalty term in the regularized equation (\ref{eq:phi})
attempts to prevent ``overfitting'' $f$ by using too many piecewise-linear
segments.

Brownian motion provides a standard example of a function with (almost
surely) unbounded variation on a finite interval. The goal of the
present paper is to evaluate $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)$,
where $\{W_{t}\}_{0\le t\le1}$ is a standard real-valued Brownian
motion. We will prove the following.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main-thm}For each $\lambda>0$, we have
\[
0\le\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)-\frac{1}{\lambda}\le\lambda,
\]
and thus in particular $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)=1/\lambda+O(\lambda)$
as $\lambda\to0.$
\end{thm}
The proof will proceed in three steps. In Section~\ref{sec:char},
we give an explicit characterization of the optimal partition in (\ref{eq:phi}).
In Section~\ref{sec:est-small}, we use this characterization along
with martingale methods and Brownian scaling to evaluate the asymptotic
behavior of $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)$ as $\lambda\to0$.
Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:error-anal}, we use the Markov property
of Brownian motion to establish the error bound stated in Theorem~\ref{thm:main-thm}.

We note in passing that the methods we use here, especially the characterization
of the optimal partition, are quite specific to our particular notion
of regularized total variation. In particular, one might wish to consider
the quantity
\[
\sup_{k\ge0}\left(\max_{a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b}\sum_{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|^{p}-\lambda k\right)
\]
for some power $p$, but our method of characterization of the optimal
partition fails for this quantity. One essential difficulty is that
the question of whether an interval $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ of a partition
should be ``split'' at $s,s'\in[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ to improve the
objective function (\ref{eq:phi}) depends on the positions of $f(s)$
and $f(s')$ in the interval $f([t_{j-1},t_{j}])$, not just on their
difference $f(s')-f(s)$, as is the case when $p=1$ according to
Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure-2}(\ref{enu:nowiggle})
below.

\section{\label{sec:char}Characterizing the optimal partition}

We begin by giving a characterization of a partition of the interval
for which the outer supremum in (\ref{eq:tv}) is achieved. (We establish
the existence of such a partition in Corollary~\ref{cor:exists-opt}.)
We begin by introducing some notation and terminology.
\begin{defn}
For a partition $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k}<t_{k+1}=b]$ of $[a,b]$,
define $|P|=k$ and, for $\lambda>0$, let $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\sum\limits _{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda|P|$.
(Thus $\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)=\max\limits _{P}\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f).$)
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
Let $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$. Suppose $[x,y]\subset[a,b]$. We say that
$[x,y]$ is an \emph{$uptick$} (resp.\emph{~downtick)} for $f$
if $f(t_{i})>f(t_{i-1})$ (resp.~$f(t_{i})<f(t_{i-1})$), and a \emph{$\lambda$-uptick}
(resp.\emph{~$\lambda$-downtick}) for $f$ if $f(t_{i})\ge f(t_{i-1})+\lambda$
(resp.~$f(t_{i})\le f(t_{i-1})-\lambda$).
\end{defn}
Our first proposition is based on observations to the effect that
a partition with certain properties cannot be optimal since moving
or removing one or more of its points would increase $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$.
In particular, this will allow us to derive the existence of an optimal
partition as a corollary.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:partition-structure}Let $\lambda>0$ and $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$.
Suppose that $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k}<t_{k+1}=b]$ is a partition
of $I=[a,b]$ such that $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)\ge\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f)$
whenever $|Q|\le|P|$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:updown}If $1\le j\le k$, then $f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})$
and $f(t_{j})-f(t_{j+1})$ have the same nonzero sign. In other words,
exactly one of $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ and $[t_{j},t_{j+1}]$ is an uptick
and the other is a downtick.
\item \label{enu:minmax}

\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:minmax-rep} If $a<t_{j-1}$ and $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is
an uptick (resp.~downtick), then $f$ attains its minimum (resp.~maximum)
on $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ at $t_{j-1}$.
\item If $t_{j}<b$ and $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick (resp.~downtick),
then $f$ attains its maximum (resp.~minimum) on $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$
at $t_{j}$.
\end{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:localminmax}For $1\le j\le k$, if $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$
is an uptick (resp.~downtick), then $f$ attains its maximum (resp.~minimum)
on $[t_{j-1},t_{j+1}]$ at $t_{j}$.
\item \label{enu:bigenough}If $a<t_{j-1}$ and $t_{j}<b$, then we have
$|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|\ge\lambda$.
\item \label{enu:bigenoughends} If $k\ge1$, then for each $1\le j\le k+1$,
we have $|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|\ge\lambda/2$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove each part in turn.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let $Q=[a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{j-1}<t_{j+1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$, so $|Q|=k-1$
and thus we have
\begin{align*}
0\le\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)-\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f) & =|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-1})|-\left[|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j})|+|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|\right]-\lambda\\
 & <|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-1})|-\left[|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j})|+|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|\right],
\end{align*}
so $|f(t_{j-1})-f(t_{j})|+|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|<|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-1})|$.
But if $f(t_{j-1})-f(t_{j})$ and $f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})$ were both
nonpositive or nonnegative then equality would hold.
\item We prove \ref{enu:minmax-rep} in the case when $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$
is an uptick. Fix $x\in(t_{j-1},t_{j})$ and let $Q=[a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{j-2}<x<t_{j}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$,
so $|Q|=k$ and thus we have (using part \ref{enu:updown})
\begin{align*}
0\le\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)-\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f) & =f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})+f(t_{j-2})-f(t_{j-1})-\left[|f(t_{j})-f(x)|+|f(x)-f(t_{j-2})|\right]\\
 & \le f(t_{j})-2f(t_{j-1})-f(t_{j-2})-[f(t_{j})-2f(x)+f(t_{j-2})]\\
 & =2[f(x)-f(t_{j-1})],
\end{align*}
so $f(x)\ge f(t_{j-1})$.
\item This is an immediate consequence of the first two statements.
\item We prove the case when $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick. Let $Q=[a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{j-2}<t_{j+1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$,
so $|Q|=k-2$ and thus we have
\begin{align*}
0 & \le\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)-\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f)\\
 & =f(t_{j})-f(t_{j+1})+f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})+f(t_{j-2})-f(t_{j-1})-|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-2})|-2\lambda\\
 & =2[f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})]-(f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-2})+|f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-2})|)-2\lambda\\
 & =2[f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})]-2\max\{f(t_{j+1})-f(t_{j-2}),0\}-2\lambda\\
 & \le2[f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})-\lambda],
\end{align*}
so $f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})\ge\lambda$.
\item Given part \ref{enu:bigenough}, it is sufficient to prove the cases
$j=1$ and $j=k+1$. We will prove the case $j=1$; the case $j=k+1$
is the same. Suppose wlog that $f(t_{1})>f(t_{0}),f(t_{2}).$ Let
$Q=[a=t_{0}<t_{2}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$, so $|Q|=k-1$ and
\begin{align*}
0\le\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)-\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f) & =f(t_{1})-f(t_{0})+f(t_{1})-f(t_{2})-|f(t_{0})-f(t_{2})|-\lambda\\
 & =2f(t_{1})-2\max\{f(t_{0}),f(t_{2})\}-\lambda\\
 & \le2[f(t_{1})-f(t_{0})]-\lambda,
\end{align*}
so $|f(t_{1})-f(t_{0})|=f(t_{1})-f(t_{0})\ge\lambda/2$.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:exists-opt}Let $\lambda>0$ and $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$. Then
there is a $K\ge0$ such that if $|P|>K$, then there is a partition
$Q$ with $|Q|\le|P|$ and $\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f)>\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$.
In particular, there is a partition $P$ (with $|P|\le K$) so that
$\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)$.\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $f$ is uniformly continuous on $[a,b]$, there is a $\delta>0$
so that if $|x-y|<\delta$, then $|f(x)-f(y)|<\lambda/2$. Let $K=(b-a)/\delta$.
If $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$ satisfies $|P|>K$, then
by the pigeonhole principle there is a $j$ so that $|t_{j}-t_{j-1}|<\delta$
and hence $|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|<\lambda/2$, so by statement~\ref{enu:bigenoughends}
of Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure} there is a $Q$ with
$|Q|\le|P|$ and $\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f)>\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$.

Let $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_{k}$ be the space of partitions of size
$k$ with possibly-coincident points, which is to say partitions of
the form $[a=t_{0}\le t_{1}\le\cdots\le t_{k}\le t_{k+1}=b]$. If
we equip $\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_{k}$ with the usual topology, then
$\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_{k}$ is compact for each $k$ and $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$
depends continuously on $P$. Therefore, the maximum of $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$
on $\bigsqcup\limits _{k=1}^{r}\tilde{\mathcal{P}}_{k}$ is achieved
whenever $r<\infty$. But by the previous paragraph, the maximum cannot
be achieved at a $P$ with $|P|>K$, and since $\lambda>0$, the maximum
cannot be achieved at a partition with coincident points. Therefore,
the maximum of $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$ over all partitions $P$ (without
coincident points) is achieved.
\end{proof}
Now that we know that an optimal partition exists, we impose further
conditions on such a partition, in addition to the ones we already
have according to Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:partition-structure-2}Let $\lambda>0$ and $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$.
Suppose that $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k}<t_{k+1}=b]$ is a partition
of $I=[a,b]$ such that $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f),$
and moreover that $|P|$ is maximal among all such $P$. Then we have
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:minmaxends}

\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:minmaxends-rep}If $[a,t_{1}]$ is an uptick (resp.~downtick)
then $\min\limits _{a\le x\le t_{1}}f(x)>f(a)-\lambda/2$ (resp.~$\max\limits _{a\le x\le t_{1}}f(x)<f(a)+\lambda/2$).
\item \label{enu:minmaxends-last}If $[t_{k},b]$ is an uptick (resp.~downtick)
then $\max\limits _{t_{k}\le x\le b}f(x)<f(b)+\lambda/2$ (resp.~$\min\limits _{t_{k}\le x\le b}f(x)>f(b)-\lambda/2$).
\end{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:nowiggle} If $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick (resp.~downtick),
then $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ contains no $\lambda$-downtick (resp.~$\lambda$-uptick).
\end{enumerate}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove each part in turn.
\begin{enumerate}
\item We prove \ref{enu:minmaxends-rep} in the case when $[t_{0},t_{1}]$
is an uptick. Fix $x\in(t_{0},t_{1})$ and let $Q=[a=t_{0}<x<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$,
so $|Q|=k+1$ and, by the maximality of $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$ and
$|P|$, we have
\begin{align*}
0<\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}-\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f) & =f(t_{1})-f(a)-\left[|f(t_{1})-f(x)|+|f(x)-f(a)|\right]+\lambda\\
 & \le f(t_{1})-f(a)-\left[f(t_{1})-f(x)+f(a)-f(x)\right]+\lambda\\
 & =2[f(x)-f(a)]+\lambda,
\end{align*}
so $f(x)>f(a)-\lambda/2$.
\item We prove the case when $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick. Let $[x,y]\subset[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$
and let $Q=[a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{j-1}<x<y<t_{j}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$,
so $|Q|=k+2$ and, by the maximality of $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$ and
$|P|$, we have
\begin{align*}
0<\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)-\Phi_{I,\lambda,Q}(f) & =f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})-\left[|f(t_{j})-f(y)|+|f(y)-f(x)|+|f(x)-f(t_{j-1})|\right]+2\lambda\\
 & \le f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})-\left[f(t_{j})-f(y)+f(x)-f(y)+f(x)-f(t_{j-1})\right]+2\lambda\\
 & =2[f(y)-f(x)+\lambda],
\end{align*}
so $f(y)>f(x)-\lambda.$ This implies that $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ cannot
contain a $\lambda$-downtick.\qedhere
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
Having established all of the needed necessary conditions for a partition
to be optimal, we now set out to write down a construction of an optimal
partition. When $f$ is taken to be a stochastic process, our construction
will be in terms of stopping times for the natural filtration, which
will allow us to use martingale methods in our later analysis.
\begin{defn}
\label{def:taus}Fix $\lambda>0$ and let $[a,b]$ be an interval.
Let $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$ and extend $f$ to $[a,\infty)$ arbitrarily.
We define a sequence of values $\tau_{0}<\tau_{1}<\cdots\in[a,\infty]$
as follows. Let
\begin{align*}
\tau_{0}^{\text{up}} & =\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,f(t)\ge f(a)+\lambda/2\right\} =\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,\text{\ensuremath{[a,t]} is a \ensuremath{(\lambda/2)}-uptick}\right\} ,\\
\intertext{and}\tau_{0}^{\text{down}} & =\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,f(t)\le f(a)-\lambda/2\right\} =\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,\text{\ensuremath{[a,t]} is a \ensuremath{(\lambda/2)}-downtick}\right\} ,
\end{align*}
Let $\tau_{0}=\tau_{0}^{\text{up}}\wedge\tau_{0}^{\text{down}}$.
If $f(\tau_{0}\wedge b)>f(a)$, then we call $\tau_{0}$ an \emph{upstop},
while if $f(\tau_{0}\wedge b)<f(a)$, then we call $\tau_{0}$ a \emph{downstop.
}Now we inductively define $\tau_{j}$ for all $j\ge1$: if $\tau_{j-1}$
is an upstop then define
\begin{align*}
\tau_{j} & =\min\{t>\tau_{j-1}\mid\text{\ensuremath{[\tau_{j-1},t]} contains a \ensuremath{\lambda}-downtick}\}=\min\left\{ t>\tau_{j-1}\,\middle|\,\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le t}f(s)-f(t)\ge\lambda\right\} ,\\
\intertext{\text{and call \ensuremath{\tau_{j}} a downstop, while if \ensuremath{\tau_{j-1}} is a downstop then define}}\tau_{j} & =\min\{t>\tau_{j-1}\mid\text{\ensuremath{[\tau_{j-1},t]} contains a \ensuremath{\lambda}-uptick}\}=\min\left\{ t>\tau_{j-1}\,\middle|\,f(t)-\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le t}f(s)\ge\lambda\right\} .
\end{align*}
and call $\tau_{j}$ an upstop. (We adopt the usual convention that
$\min\emptyset=\infty$.)
\end{defn}

\begin{defn}
\label{def:mjs}With setup as in Definition~\ref{def:taus}, let
$m_{0}=f(a)$ and, for all $j\ge1$ such that $\tau_{j-1}<b$, define
\[
m_{j}=m_{j}=\begin{cases}
\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}\wedge b}f(s) & \text{if \ensuremath{\tau_{j}} is a downstop, or}\\
\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}\wedge b}f(s) & \text{if \ensuremath{\tau_{j}} is an upstop.}
\end{cases}
\]

\end{defn}
\begin{figure}
\begin{centering}
\input{taus.pgf}
\par\end{centering}

\caption{\label{fig:stops-illustration}Illustration of Definitions~\ref{def:taus}
and~\ref{def:mjs}. The function $f$ is drawn in solid black. The
blue dashed lines represent the height to which $f$ must climb in
order to establish the next upstop, while the magenta dotted lines
represent the depth to which $f$ must fall to establish the next
downstop. Thus, the upstops and downstops themselves are the times
at which the black line intersects the blue and magenta lines; these
points are marked by circles. Here, $\tau_{j}$ is an upstop if $j$
is even and a downstop if $j$ is odd. The $m_{j}$s are marked by
red and orange triangles.}
\end{figure}
See Figure~\ref{fig:stops-illustration} for a graphical interpretation
of Definitions~\ref{def:taus} and~\ref{def:mjs}.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:mjtj}With the setup as in Definition~\ref{def:mjs},
if $j\ge1$ and $\tau_{j}<b$, then $m_{j}=f(\tau_{j})+\lambda$ if
$\tau_{j}$ is a downstop and $m_{j}=f(\tau_{j})-\lambda$ if $\tau_{j}$
is a downstop.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove the case in which $\tau_{j}$ is a downstop. In this case
we have
\[
\tau_{j}=\min\left\{ t>\tau_{j-1}\,\middle|\,\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le t}f(s)-f(t)\ge\lambda\right\} ,
\]
so since $f$ is continuous and $\tau_{j}<b$, we see that $m_{j}-f(\tau_{j})=\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}}f(s)-f(\tau_{j})=\lambda$.\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:part-stoptimes}With setup as in Definition~\ref{def:mjs},
suppose that $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k}<t_{k+1}=b]$ is a partition
of $I=[a,b]$ such that $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)$,
and moreover that $|P|$ is maximal over all such $P$. For each $j\ge1$
such that $\tau_{j-1}<b$, we have the following trichotomy.
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{enu:genericcase}If $\tau_{j}<b$, then $k\ge j$ and $t_{j}\in[\tau_{j-1},\tau_{j}]$,
and $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick or downtick as $\tau_{j-1}$ is
an upstop or downstop, respectively.
\item \label{enu:onemore}If $\tau_{j}\ge b$ and $|m_{j}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2$,
then $k=j$ and $t_{j}\in[\tau_{j-1},b)$.
\item \label{enu:nomore}If $\tau_{j}\ge b$ and $|m_{j}-f(b)|<\lambda/2$,
then $k=j-1$.
\end{enumerate}
Moreover, whenever $1\le j\le k$, we have $f(t_{j})=m_{j}$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We prove case~\ref{enu:genericcase} by induction on $j$.

We first prove the base case, $j=1$. Assume wlog that $\tau_{0}$
is an upstop. Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:bigenoughends})
implies that $t_{1}\ge\tau_{0}$. Since we assume $\tau_{0}<b$, we
have $f(\tau_{0})=f(a)+\lambda/2$. Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure-2}(\ref{enu:minmaxends-rep})
implies that $[t_{0},t_{1}]$ cannot be a downtick, so it is an uptick.
Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure-2}(\ref{enu:nowiggle})
then implies that $[t_{0},t_{1}]$ cannot contain a $\lambda$-downtick,
but (since $\tau_{1}<b<\infty$) $[\tau_{0},\tau_{1}]$ contains a
$\lambda$-downtick, so $[t_{0},t_{1}]\not\supset[\tau_{0},\tau_{1}]$,
so $k\ge1$ and $t_{1}<\tau_{1}$. This proves the base case.

We now consider the inductive step, so assume that $t_{j-2}\le\tau_{j-2}\le t_{j-1}\le\tau_{j-1}<\tau_{j}<b$
and that $[t_{j-2},t_{j-1}]$ is an uptick if and only if $\tau_{j-2}$
is an upstop. Assume wlog that $\tau_{j-1}$ is a downstop, so $\tau_{j-2}$
is an upstop and $[t_{j-2},t_{j-1}]$ is an uptick. Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:updown})
implies that $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is a downtick. Since $[\tau_{j-1},\tau_{j}]$
contains a $\lambda$-uptick, Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure-2}(\ref{enu:nowiggle})
implies that $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]\not\supset[\tau_{j-1},\tau_{j}]$, so
$k\ge j$ and $t_{j}<\tau_{j}<b$ since $t_{j-1}\le\tau_{j-1}$. Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:bigenough})
then implies that $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ contains a $\lambda$-downtick,
so $t_{j}\ge\tau_{j-1}$ since $t_{j-1}\ge\tau_{j-2}$ and $\tau_{j-1}$
is the first time $t$ such that $[\tau_{j-2},t]$ contains a $\lambda$-downtick.
This completes the proof of the inductive step for case~\ref{enu:genericcase}.

We now consider cases~\ref{enu:onemore}~and~\ref{enu:nomore},
so assume that $\tau_{j-1}<b\le\tau_{j}$. By case~\ref{enu:genericcase},
we see that $k\ge j-1$ and $t_{j-1}\le\tau_{j-1}$. Assume wlog that
$\tau_{j-1}$ is a downstop. In the same way as above, Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:bigenough},
\ref{enu:bigenoughends}) implies that $t_{j}\ge\tau_{j-1}$ if $t_{j}<b$,
and if $t_{j}=b$ then of course $t_{j}\ge\tau_{j-1}$ as well. Since
$\tau_{j}\ge b$ is the first upstop after $\tau_{j-1}$, we observe
that $[\tau_{j-1},b]$ does not contain a $\lambda$-uptick, so $k\le j$
since if $k\ge j+1$, then $[t_{j},t_{j+1}]$ would have to be a $\lambda$-uptick
by Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:bigenough}).

Under our wlog assumption, we have $m_{j}=\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le b}f(s)$.
If $m_{j}\le f(b)-\lambda/2$ and $k=j-1$, then $[t_{k-1},t_{k}=b]$
is a downtick and we obtain a contradiction of Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure-2}(\ref{enu:minmaxends-last}).
Thus, in case~\ref{enu:onemore}, we have $k=j$, completing the
proof for case~\ref{enu:onemore}. On the other hand, if $m_{j}>f(b)-\lambda/2$
and $k=j$, then $[t_{j},t_{j+1}=b]$ is an uptick and $f(t_{j})>f(b)-\lambda/2$,
contradicting Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:bigenoughends}).
This completes the proof for case~\ref{enu:nomore}.

Finally, we show that $f(t_{j})=m_{j}$ whenever $1\le j\le k$. Assume
wlog that $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick. We have shown that $t_{j-1}\le\tau_{j-1}\le t_{j}\le\tau_{j}\wedge b\le t_{j+1}$,
so $f(t_{j})\le\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}\wedge b}f(s)=m_{j}$,
while Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}(\ref{enu:localminmax})
tells us that $f(t_{j})=\max\limits _{t_{j-1}\le s\le t_{j+1}}f(s)\ge\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}\wedge b}f(s)=m_{j}.$
Therefore, $f(t_{j})=m_{j}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:times}Suppose that $k\ge0$ and $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k}<t_{k+1}=b]$
is a partition of $I=[a,b]$ such that $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)$.
Fix $1\le j\le k-1$ such that $t_{j}$ is a local minimum of $f$.
Let $\sigma_{j}=\min\{u>t_{j}\mid f(u)\ge f(t_{j})+\lambda\}$ and
$\tau_{j}=\min\{t>\sigma_{j}\mid(\exists s\in(\sigma_{j},t))\,f(t)\le f(s)-\lambda\}$.
Then $t_{j+1}\in\argmax\limits _{\sigma_{j}<s<\tau_{j}}f(s)$ and
$f(t_{j+1})=f(\tau_{j})+\lambda$.

Similarly, if $t_{j}$ is instead a local maximum of $f$, then $t_{j+1}\in\argmin\limits _{\sigma_{j}<s<\tau_{j}}f(s)$
and $f(t_{j+1})=f(\tau_{j})-\lambda$, where $\sigma_{j}=\min\{u>t_{j}\mid f(u)\le f(t_{j})-\lambda\}$
and $\tau_{j}=\min\{t>\sigma_{j}\mid(\exists s\in(\sigma_{j},t))\,f(t)\ge f(s)+\lambda\}$.

Finally, we have $\sigma_{j}=\tau_{j+1}$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We first prove the case when $t_{j}$ is a local minimum point of
$f$. By statements \ref{enu:updown} and \ref{enu:minmax} of Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure},
we have that $f(t_{j})<f(t_{j+1})>f(t_{j+2})$. By statements \ref{enu:bigenough}
and \ref{enu:nowiggle} of Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure},
we have that $\sigma_{j}\le f(t_{j+1})<\tau_{j}\le f(t_{j+2})$. But
by statement~\ref{enu:minmax} of Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure},
this means that $f(t_{j+1})\in\argmax\limits _{\sigma_{j}<s<\tau_{j}}f(s)$.

The case when $t_{j}$ is a local maximum point of $f$ is the same.

The last assertion is clear from the definitions.\end{proof}
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:minsmaxes}Let $\tau_{0}^{(0)}=\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,f(t)-\min\limits _{a\le s\le t}f(s)\ge\lambda/2\right\} $
and $\tau_{0}^{(1)}=\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,\max\limits _{a\le s\le t}f(s)-f(t)\ge\lambda/2\right\} $.
Let $\tau_{0}=\tau_{0}^{(0)}\wedge\tau_{0}^{(1)}$. If $\tau_{0}=\tau_{0}^{(\alpha)}$
then, for all $j\ge1$, let
\[
\tau_{j}=\begin{cases}
b\wedge\min\{t>\tau_{j-1}\mid(\exists s\in(\tau_{j-1},t))\,f(t)\le f(s)-\lambda\} & \text{if \ensuremath{j+\alpha} is odd, or}\\
b\wedge\min\{t>\tau_{j-1}\mid(\exists s\in(\tau_{j-1},t))\,f(t)\ge f(s)+\lambda\} & \text{if \ensuremath{j+\alpha} is even.}
\end{cases}
\]
Suppose that $k\ge0$ and $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k}<t_{k+1}=b]$
is a partition of $I=[a,b]$ such that $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)$.
Then for each $j\ge1$, if $\tau_{j}<b$, we have $\tau_{j-1}\le t_{j}\le\tau_{j}$
and
\begin{align*}
f(t_{j}) & =\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}}f(s)=f(\tau_{j})-\lambda,\text{ if \ensuremath{j+\alpha} is odd, or}\\
f(t_{j}) & =\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le\tau_{j}}f(s)=f(\tau_{j})+\lambda,\text{ if \ensuremath{j+\alpha} is even.}
\end{align*}
Moreover, suppose that $\tau_{j-1}<b=\tau_{j}$. Then we have three
cases:\end{prop}
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $j+\alpha$ is odd and $\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le b}f(s)\le f(b)-\lambda/2$,
then $k=j$ and $f(t_{j})=\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le b}f(s)$.
\item If $j+\alpha$ is even and $\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le b}f(s)\ge f(b)+\lambda/2$,
then $k=j$ and $f(t_{j})=\max\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le b}f(s)$.
\item Otherwise, $k=j-1$ (and so $t_{j}=b$ and $f(t_{j})=f(b)$).\end{enumerate}
\begin{proof}
Follows from statements~\ref{enu:bigenoughends} and \ref{enu:nowiggle}
of Proposition~\ref{prop:partition-structure}, and Proposition~\ref{prop:times}.\end{proof}
\end{comment}

\begin{comment}
\begin{defn}
Let $f\in C^{0}[a,\infty)$. Define
\begin{align*}
\sigma_{0}^{\text{up}} & =\min\{t>a\mid\text{\ensuremath{[a,t]} contains a \ensuremath{\lambda}-uptick}\}=\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,f(t)-\min\limits _{a\le s\le t}f(s)\ge\lambda\right\} ,\\
\intertext{and}\sigma_{0}^{\text{down}} & =\min\{t>a\mid\text{\ensuremath{[a,t]} contains a \ensuremath{\lambda}-downtick}\}=\min\left\{ t>a\,\middle|\,\max\limits _{a\le s\le t}f(s)-f(t)\ge\lambda\right\} .
\end{align*}
Define $\sigma_{0}=\sigma_{0}^{\text{up}}\wedge\sigma_{0}^{\text{down}}$.
If $\sigma_{0}=\sigma_{0}^{\text{up}}$ then we call $\tau_{0}$ an
\emph{upstop}, while if $\sigma_{0}=\sigma_{0}^{\text{down}}$ then
we call $\sigma_{0}$ a \emph{downstop}. Now we inductively define
$\sigma_{j}$ for all $j\ge1$: if $\sigma_{j-1}$ is an upstop then
define

\begin{align*}
\sigma_{j} & =\min\{t>\sigma_{j-1}\mid\text{\ensuremath{[\sigma_{j-1},t]} contains a \ensuremath{\lambda}-downtick}\}=\min\left\{ t>\sigma_{j-1}\,\middle|\,\max\limits _{\sigma_{j-1}\le s\le t}f(s)-f(t)\ge\lambda\right\} ,\\
\intertext{\text{and call \ensuremath{\sigma_{j}} a downstop, while if \ensuremath{\sigma_{j-1}} is a downstop then define}}\sigma_{j} & =\min\{t>\sigma_{j-1}\mid\text{\ensuremath{[\sigma_{j-1},t]} contains a \ensuremath{\lambda}-uptick}\}=\min\left\{ t>\sigma_{j-1}\,\middle|\,f(t)-\min\limits _{\tau_{j-1}\le s\le t}f(s)\ge\lambda\right\} .
\end{align*}
\end{defn}
\end{comment}

\section{\label{sec:est-small}Estimating \texorpdfstring{$\Phi_{I,\lambda}(W)$}{Φ\_\{I,λ\}(W)}
for small \texorpdfstring{$\lambda$}{λ}}

Proposition~\ref{prop:part-stoptimes} lets us algorithmically construct
a partition $P$ maximizing $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$ for any $f$.
More importantly for our purposes, however, it lets us estimate $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)$
in terms of the $\tau_{j}$s and $f(\tau_{j})$s, as the next proposition
shows.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:explicit-formula}Let $\lambda>0$ and let $I=[a,b]$
be an interval. Let $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$, define $\tau_{j}$ as above,
and let $k'=0\vee\max\{j\mid\tau_{j}<b\}$. Then there exists an $\alpha\in\{0,1\}$,
depending only on the values of $f$ on $[a,\tau_{0}\wedge b]$, so
that
\[
\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)=\lambda k'+|f(\tau_{0}\wedge b)-f(a)|+\sum_{j\ge1}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j}\wedge b)-f(\tau_{j-1}\wedge b))+\max\{0,2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|-\lambda\}.
\]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Choose a partition $P=[a=t_{0}<t_{1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=b]$ of $[a,b]$
so that $\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)$ and $|P|$ is
maximal among all $P$ with this property. Let $\mathbf{1}_{\ge}=\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}$
and $\mathbf{1}_{<}=\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|<\lambda/2}$. Note
that $k=k'+\mathbf{1}_{\ge}$. Applying Proposition~\ref{prop:part-stoptimes},
we can write
\begin{multline}
\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f)=\Phi_{I,\lambda,P}(f)=\sum\limits _{j=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|-\lambda k=\sum_{j\ge1}|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|\mathbf{1}_{j\le k+1}-\lambda k\\
=|m_{1}-f(a)|\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}|m_{j}-m_{j-1}|+(|m_{k'+1}-m_{k'}|+|f(b)-m_{k'+1}|)\mathbf{1}_{\ge}\\
+|f(b)-m_{k'}|\mathbf{1}_{<}-\lambda(k'+\mathbf{1}_{\ge}).\label{eq:bigphi}
\end{multline}
Let $\alpha=0$ if $[t_{0},t_{1}]$ is a downtick and $\alpha=1$
if $[t_{0},t_{1}]$ is an uptick, so $j+\alpha$ is even if $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$
is an uptick and odd if $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is a downtick. Note that
this definition of $\alpha$ only depends on the values of $f$ on
$[a,\tau_{0}\wedge b]$. For $0\le j\le k'$, we have that $j+\alpha$
is even if $\tau_{j}$ is a downstop and odd if $\tau_{j}$ is an
upstop, so, by Proposition~\ref{prop:mjtj}, we can write $m_{j}=f(\tau_{j})+(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda$
whenever $1\le j\le k'$.

Now we can simplify each of the pieces of (\ref{eq:bigphi}) in turn.
We have
\begin{multline}
|m_{1}-f(a)|\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}=(-1)^{\alpha+1}(m_{1}-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}=(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1})+(-1)^{\alpha+1}\lambda-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}\\
=[(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1})-f(a))+\lambda]\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}.\label{eq:bigphi1}
\end{multline}

We also have
\begin{align*}
|f(b)-m_{k'}| & =(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}(f(b)-m_{k'})\\
 & =(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}\left(f(b)-(f(\tau_{k'})+(-1)^{k'+\alpha}\lambda)\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}-f(a)\mathbf{1}_{k'=0}\right)\\
 & =(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}[(f(b)-f(\tau_{k'}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+(f(b)-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'=0}]+\lambda\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}
\end{align*}

Moreover, it is not hard to see that either $m_{k'}\le f(b)\le m_{k'+1}$
or $m_{k'}\ge f(b)\ge m_{k'+1}$. (If $k'=0$ then this is true by
the definitions. If $k'>0$ and, for example, if $\tau_{k'}$ is an
upstop, then $m_{k'+1}=\max\limits _{\tau_{k'}\le s\le\tau_{k'+1}\wedge b}f(s)=\max\limits _{\tau_{k'}\le s\le b}f(s)\ge f(b)$,
and if $f(b)<m_{k'}$, then $f(b)<m_{k'}\le f(\tau_{k'})-\lambda$,
contradicting the definition of $k'$.) This implies
\begin{align*}
|m_{k'+1}-m_{k'}|+|f(b)-m_{k'+1}| & =2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|+|f(b)-m_{k'}|.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\begin{align}
(|m_{k'+1}-m_{k'}|+\mathrlap{|f(b)-m_{k'+1}|)\mathbf{1}_{\ge}+|f(b)-m_{k'}|\mathbf{1}_{<}}\nonumber \\
 & =(2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|+|f(b)-m_{k'}|)\mathbf{1}_{\ge}+|f(b)-m_{k'}|\mathbf{1}_{<}\nonumber \\
 & =2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\mathbf{1}_{\ge}+(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}[(f(b)-f(\tau_{k'}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+(f(b)-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'=0}]+\lambda\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}.\label{eq:bigphi2}
\end{align}
\begin{comment}
\[
=(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}\left[2(m_{k'+1}-f(b))\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}+f(b)-(f(\tau_{k'})+(-1)^{k'+\alpha}\lambda)\right]=\lambda+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}\left[2(m_{k'+1}-f(b))\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}+f(b)-f(\tau_{k'})\right]
\]
\end{comment}

Finally, we can write
\begin{multline}
\sum_{j=2}^{k'}|m_{j}-m_{j-1}|=\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(m_{j}-m_{j-1})=\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})+(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda-(f(\tau_{j-1})-(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda))\\
=2\lambda(k'-1+\mathbf{1}_{k'=0})+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge j}.\label{eq:bigphi3}
\end{multline}

Substituting (\ref{eq:bigphi1}), (\ref{eq:bigphi2}), and (\ref{eq:bigphi3})
into (\ref{eq:bigphi}), we obtain
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{I,\lambda}(f) & =\left[\lambda+(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1})-f(a))\right]\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+2\lambda(k'-1+\mathbf{1}_{k'=0})+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge j}\\
 & \qquad+2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\mathbf{1}_{\ge}+(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}[(f(b)-f(\tau_{k'}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+(f(b)-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'=0}]+\lambda\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}-\lambda(k'+\mathbf{1}_{\ge})\\
 & =\lambda k'+(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1})-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge j}\\
 & \qquad+(2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|-\lambda)\mathbf{1}_{\ge}+(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}[(f(b)-f(\tau_{k'}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+(f(b)-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'=0}]\\
 & =\lambda k'+(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1})-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+(-1)^{k'+\alpha+1}(f(b)-f(\tau_{k'}))\mathbf{1}_{k'\ge1}+(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(b)-f(a))\mathbf{1}_{k'=0}\\
 & \qquad+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{j}<b}+\max\{0,2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|-\lambda\}\\
 & =\lambda k'+(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1}\wedge b)-f(a))+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j}\wedge b)-f(\tau_{j-1}\wedge b))+\max\{0,2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|-\lambda\}\\
 & =\lambda k'+(-1)^{\alpha+1}(f(\tau_{1}\wedge b)-f(\tau_{0}\wedge b)+f(\tau_{0}\wedge b)-f(a))\\
 & \qquad+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j}\wedge b)-f(\tau_{j-1}\wedge b))+\max\{0,2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|-\lambda\}\\
 & =\lambda k'+|f(\tau_{0}\wedge b)-f(a)|+\sum_{j\ge1}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j}\wedge b)-f(\tau_{j-1}\wedge b))+\max\{0,2|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|-\lambda\},
\end{align*}
as claimed.
\end{proof}

\begin{comment}
\begin{align*}
 & =(-1)^{\alpha}((-1)^{\alpha}\lambda/2+f(\tau_{1})+(-1)^{1+\alpha}\lambda-f(\tau_{0}))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(m_{j}-m_{j-1})\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(m_{k'+1}-m_{k'}-(f(b)-m_{k'+1}))\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(f(b)-m_{k'})\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|<\lambda/2}-\lambda(k'+\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2})\\
 & =(-\lambda/2+(-1)^{\alpha}(f(\tau_{1})-f(\tau_{0})))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})+(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda-(f(\tau_{j-1})-(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda))\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(2m_{k'+1}-m_{k'}-f(b))\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(f(b)-m_{k'})\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|<\lambda/2}-\lambda(k'+\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2})\\
 & =(-\lambda/2+(-1)^{\alpha}(m_{1}-f(\tau_{0})))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\lambda(k'-2)+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\\
 & \qquad+2(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(m_{k'+1}-f(b)-\lambda/2)\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(f(b)-m_{k'})\\
\\
\\
 & =(-\lambda/2+(-1)^{\alpha}(m_{1}-f(\tau_{0})))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\lambda(k'-2)+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\\
 & \qquad+2\max\{0,(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(m_{k'+1}-f(b)-\lambda/2)\}\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(f(b)-(f(\tau_{k'})+(-1)^{k'+\alpha}\lambda))\\
 & =(\lambda/2+(-1)^{\alpha}(m_{1}-f(\tau_{0})))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\lambda(k'-1)+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))\\
 & \qquad+2\max\{0,(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(m_{k'+1}-f(b)-\lambda/2)\}\\
 & \qquad+(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(f(b)-f(\tau_{k'}))\\
 & =(\lambda/2+(-1)^{\alpha}(m_{1}-f(\tau_{0})))\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\lambda(k'-1)+\sum_{j\ge2}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j}\wedge b)-f(\tau_{j-1}\wedge b))\\
 & \qquad+2\max\{0,(-1)^{k'+1+\alpha}(m_{k'+1}-f(b)-\lambda/2)\}=|m_{1}-f(a)|\mathbf{1}_{\tau_{1}<b}+\sum_{j=2}^{k'}|m_{j}-m_{j-1}|+(|m_{k'+1}-m_{k'}|+|f(b)-m_{k'+1}|)\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|\ge\lambda/2}\qquad+|f(b)-m_{k'}|\mathbf{1}_{|m_{k'+1}-f(b)|<\lambda/2}=|m_{1}-f(a)|+|f(b)-m_{k}|+\sum_{j=2}^{k}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(m_{j}-m_{j-1})=|m_{1}-f(a)|+|f(b)-m_{k}|+\sum_{j=2}^{k}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})+(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda-(f(\tau_{j-1})-(-1)^{j+\alpha}\lambda))=|m_{1}-f(a)|+|f(b)-m_{k}|+2(k-1)\lambda+\sum_{j=2}^{k}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}))
\end{align*}
\end{comment}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:interarrival-analysis}Let $\lambda>0$ and $I=[a,b]$
be an interval. Let $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$ be a standard Brownian motion
defined on the time interval $[a,b]$. Let $\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$
be the natural filtration of $\{W_{t}\}$. Then $\tau_{0}<\tau_{1}<\cdots$,
defined as in Definition~\ref{def:taus} for $W$, are almost-surely
finite stopping times with respect to the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$.
Moreover, $\{\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1}\}_{j\ge1}$ is an iid collection
of random variables and $\mathbf{E}(\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1})=\lambda^{2}$
for each $j\ge1$. Finally, $\mathbf{E}\tau_{0}=(\lambda/2)^{2}$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The fact that each $\tau_{j}$ is a stopping time is clear from the
definition. That $\{\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1}\}_{j\ge1}$ are iid follows
immediately from the definition, given the strong Markov property
of Brownian motion and the fact that the negative of a standard Brownian
motion is another standard Brownian motion.

For $j\ge1$, to prove that $\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1}$ is almost-surely
finite and to compute $\mathbf{E}(\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1})$, we note
that, by the strong Markov property and the fact that a negative of
a Brownian motion is another Brownian motion, $\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1}$
has the same distribution as the stopping time $\rho=\min\{t>a\mid Y_{t}\ge\lambda\},$
where $Y_{t}=\max\limits _{a\le s\le t}W_{s}-W_{t}$. %
\begin{comment}
It is not hard to see that $Y_{t}$ satisfies the Markov property;\footnote{For any $u\le v$, let $M_{u,v}=\max\limits _{u\le s\le v}W_{s}$
and let $Y_{v}^{(u)}=M_{u,v}-W_{v}$. Thus in particular $Y_{t}^{(0)}=Y_{t}$.
Then we have, for any $v\le t$, the expression
\[
Y_{t}^{(u)}=M_{u,t}-W_{t}=\max\{M_{u,v},M_{v,t}\}-W_{t}=\max\{M_{u,v,}-W_{v}-(W_{t}-W_{v}),M_{v,t}-W_{t}\}=\max\{Y_{v}^{(u)}-(W_{t}-W_{v}),Y_{t}^{(v)}\},
\]
so in particular we have $Y_{t}=\max\{Y_{v}-(W_{t}-W_{v}),Y_{t}^{(v)}\}.$
Then for any $a\in\mathbf{R}$ we have, using the Markov property
of Brownian motion,
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{P}(Y_{t}\le a\mid\mathcal{F}_{u}) & =\mathbf{P}\left(Y_{v}-(W_{t}-W_{v})\le a\text{ and }Y_{t}^{(v)}\le a\,\middle|\,\mathcal{F}_{v}\right)=\mathbf{P}\left(Y_{v}-(W_{t}-W_{v})\le a\text{ and }Y_{t}^{(v)}\le a\,\middle|\:Y_{v}\right).
\end{align*}
} this in particular implies that $\rho$ is almost-surely finite since
$\mathbf{P}(Y_{t+1}\ge\lambda\mid Y_{t})$ is bounded away from $0$
uniformly in $Y_{t}$.
\end{comment}
Using the reflection principle, it can be shown that the process $\{Y_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$
has the same finite-dimensional distributions as the process $\{|W_{t}|\}_{t\ge a}$~\cite[Problem 2.8.8 or Theorem 3.6.17]{karshr}.
Let $\tilde{\rho}=\min\{t>a\mid|W_{t}|\ge\lambda\}$. Since $\{Y_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$
and $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$ have continuous sample paths, $\rho$ and
$\tilde{\rho}$ are both measurable with respect to the $\sigma$-algebras
generated by finite projections of $\{Y_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$ and $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$,
respectively, and so the distributions of $\rho$ and $\tilde{\rho}$
are the same since the finite-dimensional distributions of $\{Y_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$
and $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge a}$ are the same. The fact that $\tilde{\rho}$
is almost-surely finite is the standard fact that Brownian motion
is almost-surely unbounded, and the computation $\mathbf{E}\tilde{\rho}=\lambda^{2}$
is a standard application of the optional sampling theorem on the
martingale $W_{t}^{2}-t$. Therefore, $\rho$ is almost-surely finite
and $\mathbf{E}\rho=\lambda^{2}$. %
\begin{comment}
Thus, we can compute the conditional expectation $\mathbf{E}[Y_{t}^{2}-t\mid\mathcal{F}_{u}]=\mathbf{E}[Y_{t}^{2}-t\mid Y_{u}]=\mathbf{E}[|W_{t}|^{2}-t\mid W_{u}]=0$
because $\{Y_{t}\}$ and $\{W_{t}\}$ have the same finite-dimensional
distributions, and conclude that $Y_{t}^{2}-t$ is a martingale. So
for any $n$, by the optional stopping theorem we have $0=\mathbf{E}Y_{\rho\wedge n}=\mathbf{E}\left[\left(\max\limits _{0\le s\le\rho\wedge n}W_{s}-W_{\rho\wedge n}\right)^{2}-(\rho\wedge n)\right],$
so $\mathbf{E}(\rho\wedge n)=\mathbf{E}\left(\max\limits _{0\le s\le\rho\wedge n}W_{s}-W_{\rho\wedge n}\right)^{2}.$
Sending $n\to\infty$, we have $\mathbf{E}(\rho\wedge n)\uparrow\mathbf{E}\rho$
by the monotone convergence theorem and $\mathbf{E}\left(\max\limits _{0\le s\le\rho\wedge n}W_{s}-W_{\rho\wedge n}\right)^{2}\to\mathbf{E}\left(\max\limits _{0\le s\le\rho}W_{s}-W_{\rho}\right)^{2}$
by the bounded convergence theorem, so $\mathbf{E}\rho=\mathbf{E}\left(\max\limits _{0\le s\le\rho}W_{s}-W_{\rho}\right)^{2}=\mathbf{E}\lambda^{2}=\lambda^{2}$.
\end{comment}
We obtain $\mathbf{E}\tau_{0}=(\lambda/2)^{2}$ in the same way. %
\begin{comment}
\begin{proof}
To prove the third statement, we note that, on the event $\tau_{j}<b$,
we have by the Remark following Proposition~\ref{def:mjs}, one of
the following cases: if $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is an uptick, then
\[
|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|=f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})=f(t_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1})+f(\tau_{j-1})-f(t_{j-1})=f(t_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1})+\lambda=2\lambda+f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}),
\]
while if $[t_{j-1},t_{j}]$ is a downtick, then
\[
|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|=-f(t_{j})+f(t_{j-1})=-f(t_{j})+f(\tau_{j-1})-f(\tau_{j-1})+f(t_{j-1})=-f(t_{j})+f(\tau_{j-1})+\lambda=2\lambda+f(\tau_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1}).
\]

The third statement follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:part-stoptimes}
and Problem 3(C) of \cite{lalley2014-2}, combined with the strong
Markov property of Brownian motion. This is because, if we assume
wlog that $f(t_{j})>f(t_{j-1})$, we have, on the event that $\tau_{j}<b$,
\[
|f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})|=f(t_{j})-f(t_{j-1})=f(t_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1})+f(\tau_{j-1})-f(t_{j-1})=f(t_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1})+\lambda,
\]
and $\mathbf{P}(f(t_{j})-f(\tau_{j-1})\ge\alpha)=\mathbf{P}(D(a,\tau(\lambda))=0)=e^{-a/\lambda}$,
where $D$ is defined as in Problem 3 of \cite{lalley2014-2} for
the process $f(t+\tau_{j-1})-f(\tau_{j-1})$, which is a standard
Brownian motion by the strong Markov property.\end{proof}
\end{comment}
{} \end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ui}With setup as in Proposition~\ref{prop:interarrival-analysis},
the sequence
\[
\left\{ \sum_{j=1}^{N}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})\right\} _{N\ge0}
\]
 is bounded in $L^{2}$ by $b$ (and hence is uniformly integrable).\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For each $j\ge1$, we know that $\tau_{j-1}\wedge b$ is a stopping
time, so by the strong Markov property of Brownian motion, $\left\{ (W_{t+\tau_{j-1}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})^{2}-t\right\} _{t\ge0}$
is a martingale with respect to the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_{t+\tau_{j-1}\wedge b}\}_{t\ge0}$.
Since $\tau_{j}\wedge b-\tau_{j-1}\wedge b$ is a bounded stopping
time with respect to this filtration, we have that $\mathbf{E}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})^{2}=\mathbf{E}(\tau_{j}\wedge b-\tau_{j-1}\wedge b)$
by the optional stopping theorem. Moreover, if $j\ne j'$, then $W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b}$
and $W_{\tau_{j'}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j'-1}\wedge b}$ have mean zero,
and are independent by the strong Markov property. So
\begin{multline*}
\mathbf{E}\left[\sum_{j=1}^{N}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})\right]^{2}=\\
=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathbf{E}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})^{2}+\sum_{1\le j\ne j'\le N}(-1)^{j+j'}\mathbf{E}\left[(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})(W_{\tau_{j'}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j'-1}\wedge b})\right]=\\
=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\mathbf{E}(\tau_{j}\wedge b-\tau_{j-1}\wedge b)=\mathbf{E}(\tau_{N}\wedge b-\tau_{0}\wedge b)\le b.\qedhere
\end{multline*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:mg-vanish}With setup as in Proposition~\ref{prop:interarrival-analysis},
we have $\mathbf{E}\sum\limits _{j\ge1}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})=0.$\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that $\alpha\in\mathcal{F}_{\tau_{0}\wedge b}$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:explicit-formula}.
Moreover, by the strong Markov property, $W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b}$
is independent of $\mathcal{F}_{\tau_{0}\wedge b}$ for each $j\ge1$.
So for each $j\ge1$ we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{E}\left(-1\right)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b}) & =\mathbf{E}\left(-1\right)^{j+\alpha}\mathbf{E}\left[W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b}\right]=0.
\end{align*}
Combined with Lemma~\ref{lem:ui}, this implies that $\mathbf{E}\sum\limits _{j\ge1}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})=0,$
as claimed.\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
If $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge0}$ is a standard Brownian motion, then
\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)\sim\frac{b}{\lambda}
\]
as $b\to\infty$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Let $I=[0,b]$, and set notation as in Proposition~\ref{prop:explicit-formula}
with $f(t)=W_{t}$. Proposition~\ref{prop:explicit-formula} then
tells us that
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{I,\lambda}(W) & =\lambda\mathbf{E}k'(b)+\mathbf{E}|W_{\tau_{0}\wedge b}|+\mathbf{E}\sum_{j\ge1}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})+\mathbf{E}\max\{0,2|m_{k'(b)+1}-W_{b}|-\lambda\},
\end{align*}
where $k'(b)=0\vee\max\{j\mid\tau_{j}<b\}$. Elementary renewal theory
and Proposition~\ref{prop:interarrival-analysis} then let us write
\[
\lim_{b\to\infty}\frac{\mathbf{E}k'(b)}{b}=\frac{1}{\mathbf{E}(\tau_{j}-\tau_{j-1})}=\frac{1}{\lambda^{2}}.
\]
Moreover, Lemma~\ref{lem:mg-vanish} says that $\mathbf{E}\sum\limits _{j\ge1}(-1)^{j+\alpha}(W_{\tau_{j}\wedge b}-W_{\tau_{j-1}\wedge b})=0.$
We note that
\[
0\le\mathbf{E}|W_{\tau_{0}\wedge b}|\le\lambda/2,
\]
and
\[
|\mathbf{E}\max\{0,2|m_{k'(b)+1}-W_{b}|-\lambda\}|\le\mathbf{E}|\max\{0,2|m_{k'(b)+1}-W_{b}|-\lambda\}|<\lambda
\]
by the definition of $k'$. Therefore, we have
\[
\lim_{b\to\infty}\frac{1}{b}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{I,\lambda}(W)=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda^{2}}=\frac{1}{\lambda},
\]
as claimed.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a],\lambda}(W)+\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)-\lambda\le\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a+b],\lambda}(W)\le\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a],\lambda}(W)+\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W),
\]
or equivalently,

\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a],\lambda}(W)+\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)-\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a+b],\lambda}(W)\in[0,\lambda].
\]
Let $\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)-\frac{1}{L}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,L]}(W)$.
Note that $\varepsilon_{\lambda,1}=0$. We claim that $\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}\in[\varepsilon_{\lambda,L-1},\frac{L-1}{L}\lambda]$.
This is proven by induction by noting that, for some $R_{\lambda,L}\in[0,\lambda]$,
we have
\begin{multline*}
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,L]}(W)=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)+\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,L-1]}(W)-R_{\lambda,L}=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)+(L-1)(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)-\varepsilon_{\lambda,L-1})-R_{\lambda,L}=\\
=L\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)-(L-1)\varepsilon_{\lambda,L-1}-R_{\lambda,L},
\end{multline*}
so
\[
\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)-\frac{1}{L}(L\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)-(L-1)\varepsilon_{\lambda,L-1}-R_{\lambda,L})=\frac{L-1}{L}\varepsilon_{\lambda,L-1}+\frac{1}{L}R_{\lambda,L}.
\]

and $2\varepsilon_{\lambda,2}=2\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1]}(W)-\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,L]}(W)\in[0,\lambda]$
by the above inequality, so $\varepsilon_{\lambda,2}\in[0,\lambda/2]$.

h
\end{comment}

\begin{prop}
\label{prop:scaling}Let $b\ge0$ and $\mu>0$, and let $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge0}$
be a standard Brownian motion. Then $\Phi_{[0,\mu b],\lambda}(W)$
has the same law as $\sqrt{\mu}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda/\sqrt{\mu}}(W)$.
In particular, $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,\mu b],\lambda}(W)=\sqrt{\mu}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda/\sqrt{\mu}}(W).$\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Brownian scaling by the simple computation
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{[0,\mu b],\lambda}(W) & =\max\limits _{k\ge0}\max\limits _{0=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=\mu b}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{k+1}|W_{t_{i}}-W_{t_{i-1}}|-\lambda k\right)\\
 & =\sqrt{\mu}\cdot\max\limits _{k\ge0}\max\limits _{0=s_{0}<\cdots<s_{k+1}=b}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{k+1}\left|\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}W_{\mu s_{i}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mu}}W_{\mu s_{i-1}}\right|-\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{\mu}}\cdot k\right)\\
 & =\sqrt{\mu}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda/\sqrt{\mu}}(\tilde{W}),
\end{align*}
where $\tilde{W}_{t}=W_{\mu t}/\sqrt{\mu}$. But by Brownian scaling,
$\tilde{W}_{t}$ is another standard Brownian motion, so $\Phi_{[0,\mu b],\lambda}(W)$
has the same law as $\sqrt{\mu}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda/\sqrt{\mu}}(W)$.\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{cor:limit}If $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge0}$ is a standard Brownian motion,
then
\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)\sim1/\lambda
\]
as $\lambda\downarrow0$.\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
An easy computation from the previous two propositions:
\[
\lim_{\lambda\downarrow0}\lambda\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)=\lim_{\lambda\downarrow0}\lambda^{2}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1/\lambda^{2}],1}(W)=\lim_{b\to\infty}\frac{1}{b}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b]}(W)=1.\qedhere
\]

\end{proof}

\section{\label{sec:error-anal}Error analysis for fixed \texorpdfstring{$\lambda$}{λ}}

Now that we have established the asymptotic behavior (as $\lambda\to0$)
of $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)$, we turn to estimating the
error term. We use a simple argument based on subdividing intervals
and applying Brownian scaling.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:crude-split}Let $f\in C^{0}[a,b]$. For any $a<b<c$,
we have $\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)+\Phi_{[b,c],\lambda}(f)-\lambda\le\Phi_{[a,c],\lambda}(f)\le\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)+\Phi_{[b,c],\lambda}(f)$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We compute
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{[a,c],\lambda}(f) & =\max\limits _{k\ge0}\max\limits _{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=c}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda k\right)\\
 & \ge\max\limits _{k\ge1}\max\limits _{1\le\ell\le k}\max\limits _{\substack{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{\ell}=b\\
b=t_{\ell}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=c
}
}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda k\right)\\
 & =\max\limits _{k\ge1}\max\limits _{1\le\ell\le k}\max\limits _{\substack{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{\ell}=b\\
b=t_{\ell}<t_{\ell+2}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=c
}
}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{\ell}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda(\ell-1)-\lambda+\sum\limits _{i=\ell+1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda(k-\ell)\right)\\
 & =\max\limits _{\ell'\ge0}\max\limits _{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{\ell'+1}=b}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{\ell}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda(\ell-1)\right)\\
 & \qquad\qquad+\max\limits _{m\ge0}\max\limits _{b=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{m+1}=c}\left(\sum\limits _{i=0}^{m+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda m\right)-\lambda\\
 & =\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)+\Phi_{[b,c],\lambda}(f)-\lambda.
\end{align*}
Moreover,
\begin{align*}
\mathrlap{\Phi_{[a,c],\lambda}(f)=}\quad\\
 & =\max\limits _{k\ge0}\max\limits _{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=c}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda k\right)\\
 & =\max_{\substack{k\ge0\\
1\le\ell\le k
}
}\max_{\substack{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{\ell}<b\\
b<t_{\ell+1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=c
}
}\left(\sum\limits _{i=1}^{\ell}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|+|f(b)-f(t_{\ell})|+|f(t_{\ell+1})-f(b)|+\sum\limits _{i=\ell+2}^{k}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda k\right)\\
 & \le\max_{\substack{k\ge0\\
1\le\ell\le k
}
}\max_{\substack{a=t_{0}<\cdots<t_{\ell}<b\\
b<t_{\ell+1}<\cdots<t_{k+1}=c
}
}\Bigg(\left[\sum\limits _{i=1}^{\ell}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|+|f(b)-f(t_{\ell})|-\lambda\ell\right]\\
 & \qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+\left[|f(t_{\ell+1})-f(b)|+\sum\limits _{i=\ell+2}^{k+1}|f(t_{i})-f(t_{i-1})|-\lambda(k-\ell)\right]\Bigg)\\
 & =\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)+\Phi_{[b,c],\lambda}(f).
\end{align*}
In summary, we have $\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)+\Phi_{[b,c],\lambda}(f)-\lambda\le\Phi_{[a,c],\lambda}(f)\le\Phi_{[a,b],\lambda}(f)+\Phi_{[b,c],\lambda}(f)$.\end{proof}
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:splitscale}If $\{W_{t}\}_{t\ge0}$ is a standard Brownian
motion, then for any $L\in\mathbf{N}$ we have
\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda/\sqrt{L}}(W)=\sqrt{L}(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)-\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}),
\]
with $0\le\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}\le\lambda$.\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By inductively applying Proposition~\ref{prop:crude-split} and the
Markov property of Brownian motion, for any $L\in\mathbf{N}$ we get
the inequality
\[
L(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)-\lambda)\le L\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)-(L-1)\lambda\le\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,Lb],\lambda}(W)\le L\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W),
\]
so we have
\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,Lb],\lambda}(W)=L(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda}(W)-\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}),
\]
for some $0\le\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}\le\lambda$. By Proposition~\ref{prop:scaling},
we have $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,Lb]}(W)=\sqrt{L}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,b],\lambda/\sqrt{L}}(W),$
so the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{comment}
, or (sacrificing a little bit), $\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a],\lambda}(W)-\lambda\le\frac{1}{L}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,La],\lambda}(f)\le\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a],\lambda}(f)$.
So we can put
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,La],\lambda}(f)=L(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,a],\lambda}(W)-\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}),
\end{equation}
with $0\le\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}\le\lambda$.
\end{comment}
\begin{comment}
In particular,
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{L}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,L],\lambda}(f)\le\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W).
\end{equation}
\end{comment}

\begin{comment}
Now we have, for $L\in\mathbf{N}$, that
\[
\sqrt{L}\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda/\sqrt{L}}(W)=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,L],\lambda}(W)=L(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(f)-\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}),
\]
so we have
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda/\sqrt{L}}(W)=\sqrt{L}\cdot(\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)-\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}).\label{eq:recurm-raw}
\end{equation}

For ease of notation we now put $\xi(\lambda)=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W),$
and note that $\xi$ is decreasing. We also put $\zeta=\sqrt{2}$.
Then the last equation reads
\begin{equation}
\xi(\lambda/\sqrt{L})=\sqrt{L}\xi(\lambda)-\sqrt{L}\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}.\label{eq:recurm}
\end{equation}
\end{comment}

Our final proposition implies Theorem~\ref{thm:main-thm}.
\begin{prop}
With notation as in Proposition~\ref{prop:splitscale}, we have
\[
\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(W)=\frac{1}{\lambda}+\alpha_{\lambda},
\]
where $\alpha_{\lambda}=\lim\limits _{r\to\infty}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}$
(and thus $0\le\alpha_{\lambda}\le\lambda$).\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
For ease of notation, we now put $\xi(\lambda)=\mathbf{E}\Phi_{[0,1],\lambda}(f)$,
where $f(t)=W_{t}$, a standard Brownian motion. Note that $\xi$
is decreasing. With this notation, and putting $b=1$, the previous
Proposition tells us that
\begin{equation}
\xi(\lambda/\sqrt{L})=\sqrt{L}\xi(\lambda)-\sqrt{L}\varepsilon_{\lambda,L}.\label{eq:recur}
\end{equation}
 %
\begin{comment}
$\lim\limits _{r\to\infty}\frac{\lambda}{\zeta^{r}}\xi(\lambda/\zeta^{r})=\lambda\xi(\lambda)-\lambda\alpha_{\lambda},$
\end{comment}

For typographical convenience, put $\zeta=\sqrt{2}$. Applying (\ref{eq:recur})
three times, with $L=2^{r+1}$, $L=2$, and $L=2^{r}$, we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\zeta^{r+1}\xi(\lambda)-\zeta^{r+1}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r+1}}=\xi(\lambda/\zeta^{r+1})=\zeta\xi(\lambda/\zeta^{r})-\zeta\varepsilon_{\lambda/\zeta^{r},2}=\zeta\left[\zeta^{r}\xi(\lambda)-\zeta^{r}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2{}^{r}}\right]-\zeta\varepsilon_{\lambda/\zeta^{r},2}\\
=\zeta^{r+1}\xi(\lambda)-\zeta^{r+1}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}-\zeta\varepsilon_{\lambda/\zeta^{r},2},
\end{multline*}
so
\[
\zeta^{r}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r+1}}=\zeta^{r}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}+\varepsilon_{\lambda/\zeta^{r},2},
\]
so in particular
\[
\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r+1}}\ge\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}
\]
since $\varepsilon_{\lambda/\zeta^{r},2}\ge0$. Thus for fixed $\lambda$,
the sequence $\{\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}\}_{r}$ is nondecreasing
and bounded above by $\lambda$. Thus $\alpha_{\lambda}=\lim\limits _{r\to\infty}\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}$
exists and lies in $[0,\lambda]$. From (\ref{eq:recur}) again, we
have
\[
\xi(\lambda)=\varepsilon_{\lambda,2^{r}}+\frac{1}{\zeta^{r}}\xi(\lambda/\zeta^{r}),
\]
so we can conclude, using Corollary~\ref{cor:limit}, that
\[
1=\lim\limits _{r\to\infty}\frac{\lambda}{\zeta^{r}}\xi(\lambda/\zeta^{r})=\lambda\xi(\lambda)-\lambda\alpha_{\lambda},
\]
or $\xi(\lambda)=1/\lambda+\alpha_{\lambda}$, as claimed.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgments}

The author wishes to thank Jian Ding for suggesting the problem and
for extensive advice and comments on the manuscript. Much of this
work was done while the author was an undergraduate student at the
University of Chicago. Final preparation of the manuscript was done
while the author was supported by an NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.

\bibliographystyle{plain}