Probability distribution of distances between local extrema of random number series

Abstract: There is a sequence of random numbers x1,x2, ..., xn and so on. Numbers are independent of each other, but all numbers are from the same continuous distribution. If x1 < x2 > x3, then x2 is a local maximum. Here, we show that the probability mass function (PMF) of idstribution of distances between local maxima is non-parametric and the same for any probability distribution of random numbers in the sequence, and that the average distance is exactly 3. We present a method of computation of this PMF and its table for distances betwen 2 and 29. This PMF is confirmed to match distance distributions of sample random number sequences, which were created by pseudo-random number generators or obtained from "true" random number sources.

\section{Average distnace between local maxima}

\noindent Let's take any number in the sequence and find out the probability that it's a local maximum.
\begin{definition}
A number $x_i$ is a local maximum, if the following condition is true $ x_{i-1} < x_i > x_{i+1}$.
\end{definition}
First, we'll use a combinatorial approach. Consider the following sequence (Figure \ref{sample-seq}) of pseudo-random numbers generated by MS Excel RAND() function:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item 0.935536495
\item 0.191531578
\item 0.429049655
\item 0.308968021
\item 0.179540986
\item 0.401329789
\item 0.71581906
\item 0.604617962
\item 0.877254876
\item 0.973280207
\item 0.489033299
\item 0.912367351
\item 0.604552972
\item 0.039395302
\item 0.3780448
\item 0.55317569
\item 0.6308772
\item 0.373163479
\item 0.812434426
\item 0.560173882
\end{enumerate}

\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
		\includegraphics{figure-1.eps}
	\caption{Sample random sequence}
	\label{sample-seq}
\end{figure}

Let's take any three consequitive numbers $x_{i-1}$, $x_i$ and $x_{i+1}$. For instance, for $i=3$ we have: $x_2=0.191531578$, $x_3=0.429049655$ and $x_4=0.308968021$. In this case, $x_3$ is a local maximum. If we denote the greatest value as 2, the least value as 0 and the value in the middle as 1, then we have a triplet (0,2,1). Any three consequitive numbers can be represented by such triplet.
Out of six possible permutations\\
\hspace*{\fill}(0,1,2), (0,2,1), (1,0,2), (1,2,0), (2,0,1) and (2,1,0) \hspace*{\fill}\\
we are interested only in two combinations, which represent local maxima\\
\hspace*{\fill}(0,2,1) and (1,2,0).\hspace*{\fill}\\
Therefore, if we take any three consequitive numbers, then the probability that the number in the middle is a local maximum is
	\[P_{max}=\frac{2}{6}=\frac{1}{3}\]
	If we have $3\cdot N$ numbers in the sequence, then $N$ of them are local maxima. It also means that the average distance between maxima should be exactly $3$.

Now, let's introduce some additional notation and use an operator approach. When $x_{i-1} < x_i$ we'll put an operator $U$, i.e. the sequence goes "up". Alternatively, when $x_{i-1} > x_i$ we'll put an operator $D$, i.e. the sequence goes "down". For our sample sequence, the corresponding operator sequence is:
\begin{enumerate}
	\item 0.935536495
\item 0.191531578 D
\item 0.429049655 U
\item 0.308968021 D
\item 0.179540986 D
\item 0.401329789 U
\item 0.71581906 U
\item 0.604617962 D
\item 0.877254876 U
\item 0.973280207 U
\item 0.489033299 D
\item 0.912367351 U
\item 0.604552972 D
\item 0.039395302	D
\item 0.3780448	U
\item 0.55317569 U
\item 0.6308772	U
\item 0.373163479	D
\item 0.812434426 U
\item 0.560173882 D
\end{enumerate}

We can apply our new notation to triplets and see that\\
\hspace*{\fill}(0,1,2) becomes $\left\langle UU\right\rangle$ \hspace*{\fill}\\
\hspace*{\fill}(0,2,1) and (1,2,0) become $\left\langle UD\right\rangle$ \hspace*{\fill}\\
\hspace*{\fill}(1,0,2) and (2,0,1) become $\left\langle DU\right\rangle$ \hspace*{\fill}\\
\hspace*{\fill}(2,1,0) becomes $\left\langle DD\right\rangle$ \hspace*{\fill}\\
Having a new notation, we can use it to compute the probability of appearance of a
local maximum in the middle of any triplet. We are interested in triplets represented by
$\left\langle UD\right\rangle$, because it's the only expression, which represents a local maximum in the middle of a triplet.
We shall use a standard cumulative distribution function (CDF) $F(x)$, defined as a probability of $x\leq x_{i}$: \[F(x_{i})=Pr(x\leq x_{i}) = \int^{x_i}_{-\infty}f(x)\cdot dx\]
, where $f(x)$ is PDF (probability density function) of $x$. This also could be written as
\[F(x_{i}) = \int^{F(x_i)}_{0}dF(x)\]
On the other hand, probability of $x>x_{i}$ is \[\int^{1}_{F(x_i)}dF(x)=1-F(x_{i})\]
Now, we can write the following formula
\[
\left\langle UD\right\rangle = \int^{1}_{0}dF(x_{i-1})\cdot \int^{1}_{F(x_{i-1})}dF(x_{i})\cdot  \int^{F(x_{i})}_{0}dF(x_{i+1})\]
The first integral declares that the first number in a triplet $\left\langle UD\right\rangle$ can have any value. The next integral says that the number in the middle of a triplet should be greater than the first number. Finally, the third integral is for the trailing number of a triplet, which should be less than the previous number. It's easy to compute the probability as follows
\[
\int^{1}_{0}dF(x_{i-1})\cdot \int^{1}_{F(x_{i-1})}dF(x_{i})\cdot  \int^{F(x_{i})}_{0}dF(x_{i+1}) =
\int^{1}_{0}dF(x_{i-1})\cdot \int^{1}_{F(x_{i-1})}dF(x_{i})\cdot F(x_{i})\]

\[
\int^{1}_{0}dF(x_{i-1})\cdot \int^{1}_{F(x_{i-1})}dF(x_{i})\cdot F(x_{i})=
\int^{1}_{0}dF(x_{i-1})\cdot ( \frac{1}{2}- \frac{F(x_{i-1})^2}{2})\]

\[
\int^{1}_{0}dF(x_{i-1})\cdot ( \frac{1}{2}- \frac{F(x_{i-1})^2}{2})=
\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{6}=\frac{1}{3}\]

We got the same number in both combinatorial and operator approaches.

\section{PMF of distances between local maxima}

Now, it's time to advance our notation. Let's break up $\left\langle UD\right\rangle$ into pieces.
\begin{definition}
Operators $\langle$,$U$,$D$ and $\rangle$ are defined as

\[
\langle \psi(x) = \int^{1}_{0}d\psi(x)
\]

\[
U\cdot \psi(x) =  \int^{1}_{z(x)}d\psi(x)\cdot \psi(x)\]

\[
D\cdot \psi(x) =  \int^{z(x)}_{0}d\psi(x)\cdot \psi(x)\]

\[
\rangle = 1
\]

\end{definition}

Armed with this notation let's look at any quintet of numbers from $i-1$ to $i+3$.
If it happens so that the numbers come like (0,2,1,4,3), then we got
two local maxima $x_{i}=2$ and $x_{i+2}=4$. The distance between these maxima is
$(i+2) - i=2$. This quintet can be represented by an expression $\langle UDUD\rangle$. Such quintet in our sample sequence can be found at $i=10$:
($x_9=0.877254876$, $x_{10}=0.973280207$, $x_{11}=0.489033299$,
$x_{12}=0.912367351$, $x_{13}=0.604552972$).

\begin{definition}
If $x_i$ is a local maximum, and the next nearest maximum is the number $x_j$, the the distance between maxima is $j-i$.
\end{definition}

Now, we can compute the probability of the distance between local maxima equal to 2
\begin{equation}
Pr(d=2)=f_m(2)=\frac{\langle UDUD\rangle }{P_{max}}=\frac{\langle UDUD\rangle }{\langle UD\rangle}
\end{equation}
, where $d$ is a distance between local maxima and $f_m(d)$ is a probability mass function (PMF) of the distribution of these distances.

Notice the denominator. It is necessary to divide the probability of the quintet by the probability of the maximum in its first three numbers (triplet). Consider the quintet ($x_{10}=0.973280207$,$x_{11}=0.489033299$,
$x_{12}=0.912367351$,$x_{13}=0.604552972$,$x_{14}=0.039395302$) from the sample sequence above. Its operator expression is $\langle DUDD\rangle$, which doesn't seem to represent two maxima on distance 2. Let's add the number $x_9=0.877254876$ and look at the resulting sextet. This sextet's operator expression is $\langle UDUDD\rangle$. It starts with $\langle UDUD\rangle$. Clearly, our original quintet is a part of a sextet with two maxima on distance 2. Therefore, we have to take into account those quintets, which are not represented by $\langle UDUD\rangle$, but these quintets could be parts of sought quintets. Probability $P_{max}$ in denominator includes those quintets, which would be left unaccounted otherwise.

This formula can also be interpreted in terms of conditional probabilities as follows

\begin{equation}
Pr(A|B)=\frac{Pr(A\cap B) }{Pr(B)}
\end{equation}, where event $A\cap B$ is a quintet with one maximum in its head and one maximum in its tail, event B is the maximum in first three numbers of a quintet, and event $A|B$ is two maxima on a given distance from each other.

Using the same methodology it's easy to show that the probability of the distance 3 is
\begin{equation}
Pr(d=3)=f_m(3)=\frac{\langle UDUUD\rangle+\langle UDDUD\rangle }{P_{max}}=
\frac{\langle UDU^2D\rangle+\langle UD^2UD\rangle }{P_{max}}
\end{equation}
In order to see why there are two terms in the numerator, consider these two sextets (0,2,1,3,5,4) and (0,3,2,1,5,4). The following is the table with formulae for the next 3 distances

\begin{equation}
Pr(d=4)=f_m(4)=\frac{\langle UDU^3D\rangle+\langle UD^2U^2D\rangle+\langle UD^3D\rangle }
{P_{max}}
\label{pr4}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
Pr(d=5)=f_m(5)=\frac{\langle UDU^4D\rangle+\langle UD^2U^3D\rangle+\langle UD^3U^2D\rangle+\langle UD^4UD\rangle }
{P_{max}}
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
f_m(6)=\frac{\langle UDU^5D\rangle+\langle UD^2U^4D\rangle+\langle UD^3U^3D\rangle+\langle UD^4U^2D\rangle+\langle UD^5UD\rangle }
{P_{max}}
\end{equation}

\section{Results}

In order to compute a probability of a given distance between maxima, we have to identify corresponding integrals, evaluate them and sum them up.
For example, computing the probability of distance 4 involves evaluation, see equation \ref{pr4}.
A simple analytical expression for the sums of integrals in numerators of the above probabilities was presented in
\cite{oshanin} (see equation 3.8):
\begin{equation}
	p(l)=2^l\frac{(l-1)(l+2)}{(l+3)!}
	\label{pl}
\end{equation}
In \cite{oshanin} a set of similar problems are studied, e.g. permutation generated random walks, by using a different and more generic
approach. However, the equation \ref{pl} can be used to
to derive the probability of distances between local maxima:
\begin{equation}
	f_m(d)=\frac{p(l)}{P_{max}}=3\cdot 2^d\frac{(d-1)(d+2)}{(d+3)!}
	\label{pmf}
\end{equation}

We were not aware of this work, and in absence of a simple analytical expression for a sum of integrals in the PMF equations (such as \ref{pr4}), we wrote a Java program, which does all required work. First, it generates the necessary integrals using our operator notaion, e.g. $\langle UDU^3D\rangle+\langle UD^2U^2D\rangle+\langle UD^3D\rangle$. Next, it evaluates the corresponding integrals and sums symbolically.

The resulting PMF table is shown in table \ref{pmf_table}. Variance of this distribution $\approx 1.167168$ and the standard deviation $\approx 1.08$.

\begin{table}[h]
  \caption{Table of PMF of distances between local maxima}
  \label{pmf_table}
  \begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{lll}
      Distance &Probability &Decimal Approximation\\
      $d$&$f_m(d)$\\
    \hline
2& 2/5 & 0.4\\
3& 1/3 & 0.3333333333333333\\
4& 6/35 & 0.17142857142857143\\
5& 1/15 & 0.06666666666666667\\
6& 4/189 & 0.021164021164021163\\
7& 1/175 & 0.005714285714285714 \\
8& 2/1485 & 0.0013468013468013469\\
9& 4/14175 & 2.821869488536155E-4\\
10& 4/75075 & 5.328005328005328E-5\\
11& 2/218295 & 9.161913923818686E-6\\
12& 4/2764125 & 1.4471125582236693E-6\\
13& 1/4729725 & 2.114287828573543E-7\\
14& 8/278326125 & 2.8743259368842937E-8\\
15& 1/273648375 & 3.654324641978963E-9\\
16& 2/4583103525 & 4.363855167334454E-10\\
17& 8/162820783125 & 4.913377669887681E-11\\
18& 4/764299911375 & 5.2335476433640715E-12\\
19& 2/3781060408125 & 5.289521414950853E-13\\
20& 4/78642438249375 & 5.0863122876684074E-14\\
21& 2/428772250281375 & 4.664480965565126E-15\\
22& 8/19566987612046875 & 4.088518968077954E-16\\
23& 2/58274046742786875 & 3.432059573325511E-17\\
24& 4/1447106344699640625 & 2.7641368684830376E-18\\
25& 8/37392513326621578125 & 2.1394657080470717E-19\\
26& 8/501914364595623354375 & 1.5938973985025013E-20\\
27& 4/3494761822449632109375 & 1.1445701318770342E-21\\
28& 8/100847608441898396203125 & 7.932761246003232E-23\\
29& 1/188217886723358757890625 & 5.312991328341671E-24\\
\cline{1-3}
\\
 Total&$\frac{2722885427931256697484374}{2722885427931256697484375 }$& 1 - 3.6725746509274224E-25

    \end{tabular}
    \par\medskip\footnotesize
  \end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[h]
  \caption{Table of CDF of distances between local maxima}
  \label{cdf_table}
  \begin{center}
    \begin{tabular}{lll}
      Distance&Cumulative Probability &Decimal Approximation\\
      $d$&$F_m(d)$\\
    \hline
2&2/5&0.4\\
3&11/15&0.7333333333333333\\
4&19/21&0.9047619047619048\\
5&34/35&0.9714285714285714\\
6&134/135&0.9925925925925926\\
7&4717/4725&0.9983068783068783\\
8&5773/5775&0.9996536796536797\\
9&31183/31185&0.9999358666025333\\
10&184273/184275&0.9999891466558133\\
11&4729717/4729725&0.9999983085697371\\
12&16372121/16372125&0.9999997556822954\\
13&30405374/30405375&0.9999999671110782\\
14&241215974/241215975&0.9999999958543376\\
15&32564156609/32564156625&0.9999999995086623\\
16&36395233873/36395233875&0.9999999999450477\\
17&343732764373/343732764375&0.9999999999941815\\
18&3419236445623/3419236445625&0.999999999999415\\
19&142924083427117/142924083427125&0.999999999999944\\
20&782679504481871/782679504481875&0.9999999999999949\\
21&4482618980214373/4482618980214375&0.9999999999999996\\
22&53596531285171873/53596531285171875&$\approx 1.0$\\
23&$\frac{5341787618088796859}{5341787618088796875}$\\
24&$\frac{17307391882607701871}{17307391882607701875}$\\
25&$\frac{232984121496642140621}{232984121496642140625}$\\
26&$\frac{3253148659416077296871}{3253148659416077296875}$\\
27&$\frac{188217886723358757890609}{188217886723358757890625}$\\
28&$\frac{1408389014447201740078117}{1408389014447201740078125}$\\
29&$\frac{2722885427931256697484374}{2722885427931256697484375}$\\
\cline{1-3}
    \end{tabular}
    \par\medskip\footnotesize
  \end{center}
\end{table}

We tested validity of a computed PDF table on several random and pseudo-random number sequences. For pseudo-random number sequences we used Java's standard pseudo-random generator java.lang.Random and Daniel Cer's Java implementation \cite{Cer} of notorious RANDU generator \cite{Knuth}.
We used Mads Haahr's True Random Number Service
web site \cite{Haahr} as a source of "true" random numbers. We modified the supplied Java client, which connects to the server and retrieves the true random number batches.  We generates random number sequences using these methods and compared them with the theoretical PMF using several tests such as Kolmogorov-Smirnov and $\chi^{2}$ goodness of fit tests, see chapters 1.3.5.15 and 1.3.5.16 in \cite{NIST}. Also, according to the central limit theorem in large samples the standard deviation of the average distance between maxima should approach $\frac {\sigma}{\sqrt{n}}$, where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the distances in the population and $n$ is the size of the sample \cite{MathWorld}. We used this feature to compare sample average distances to a theoretical average distance 3.

As expected, java.lang.Random's and "true" random sequences were consistent with our PMF on any sample sizes varying from 100 to 100,000,000. Surprisingly, RANDU-generated sequences were also compliant with this PMF. When deriving this PMF, we assumed that numbers in the sequences are independent of each other. RANDU generator has a well known deficiency: its numbers are not independent. However, as it was noted before, it fared well in our tests.

The table \ref{samples_tbl} shows sample statistics for "true" random and RANDU generated sequences compared to theoretical frequencies of distances between maxima. Both samples are distributed as predicted by theoretical PMF $f_m(d)$, they pass $\chi^{2}$ goodness of fit test with higher than 0.99 probabilities. Their average distances are also within the $3\cdot\sigma$ area of a theoretical value of 3. The p-value for the latter test is the probability of the deviation from the theoretical average distance greater than of the observed value.
\begin{table}[h]
	\caption{Sample Frequency Comparison}
	\label{samples_tbl}
	\centering
		\begin{tabular}{lrrr}
Distance&Theoretical&True Random&RANDU\\
&Frequency&Frequency&Frequency\\
\hline
2&40000&39803&40462\\
3&33333&33544&33003\\
4&17143&17119&17073\\
5&6667&6673&6545\\
6&2116&2139&2157\\
7&571&549&571\\
8&135&136&148\\
9&28&31&36\\
10&5&3&5\\
11&1&2&0\\
12&0&1&0\\
\hline
Average&3&3.00187&2.99447\\
Std Dev of Mean&0.0034\\
p-value&&0.584 &0.106\\
\hline
$\chi^{2}$, df&&1.006, 10&1.386, 8\\
p-value&&0.9998&0.9944\\
\cline{1-4}
		\end{tabular}
\end{table}

\begin{conclusion}
We constructed a simple method of computation of PMF of the distribution of distances between local maxima in random number series.
We confirmed that selected pseudo-random and true random number sequences are distributed according to this PMF.
\end{conclusion}
\begin{acknowledgement}
Author is very gratefull to Dr. F.M.Pen'kov and Dr. K.Gartvig for fruitfull discussions and interesting suggestions on this topic.
\end{acknowledgement}

Statistics Theory (math.ST); Probability (math.PR)


Finite Convergence Analysis and Weak Sharp Solutions for Variational Inequalities

Abstract: In this paper, we study the weak sharpness of the solution set of variational inequality problem (in short, VIP) and the finite convergence property of the sequence generated by some algorithm for finding the solutions of VIP. In particular, we give some characterizations of weak sharpness of the solution set of VIP without considering the primal or dual gap function. We establish an abstract result on the finite convergence property for a sequence generated by some iterative methods. We then apply such abstract result to discuss the finite termination property of the sequence generated by proximal point method, exact proximal point method and gradient projection method. We also give an estimate on the number of iterates by which the sequence converges to a solution of the VIP.

\section{Introduction}

Burke and Ferris \cite{BF93} introduced the concept of weak sharp solutions for an optimization problem
in terms of a gap function and gave its characterization in terms of a geometric condition.
Marcotte and Zhu \cite{MZ98} exploited that geometric condition to introduce the concept
of weak sharp solutions for variational inequalities. They also gave a characterization of
weak sharp solutions in terms of a dual gap function for variational inequalities.
It is further studied by Wu and Wu \cite{WW04}.
Recently, Liu and Wu \cite{LW15} studied weak sharp solutions for the variational inequality
in terms of its primal gap function. They also characterized the weak sharpness of the solution set
of the variational inequality problem in terms of the primal gap function.
They also presented some finite convergence results of algorithms for the VIP.
One of the most important features to study the weak sharpness of the solution set of the variational
inequality problem is that it provides the finite convergence property to the sequences generated
by the algorithms for finding the solution of variational inequalities, see, e.g.,
\cite{LW15,MZ98,MX13,MX15,WW04}.

In this paper, we give some characterizations of weak sharp solutions for the VIP without considering the
primal or dual gap function. Our characterizations give some better estimates for the distance
from any point in the underlying space to the
solution set of the VIP than the results obtained by using primal or dual gap function.
We study some abstract results on the finite termination property
for a sequence generated by some iterative methods for finding the solutions of the VIP.
As applications of the abstract results, we discuss the finite termination property of the sequence
generated by the proximal point method, exact proximal point method and gradient projection method.
We also give an estimate on the number of iterates by which the sequence converges to a
solution of the VIP.

\section{Preliminaries}

Let $H$ be a real Hilbert space whose inner product and norm are denoted by $\langle .,.\rangle$ and
$\|\cdot \|$, respectively. We denote by $\mathbb{B}$ the unit ball in $H$.
For a given set $C$ in $H$, we denote by $\mathrm{int}C$ the interior of $C$ and
by $\mathrm{cl}C$ the closure of $C$. The \textit{polar} $C^{\circ}$ of $C$ is defined by
$$C^{\circ} := \left\{ x^{*} \in H : \langle x^*,x\rangle \le 0 \text{ for all } x \in C \right\}.$$
For a given $x\in H$, the distance from $x$ to $C$ is defined by
$$\mathrm{dist}(x,C) := \inf_{y \in C} \| y-x \|,$$
and the \textit{projection} of $x$ onto $C$ is defined by
$$P_C(x) := \{ y \in C : \| y-x \| = \mathrm{dist}(x,C) \}.$$
It is well-known that $P_{C}(x)$ is a singleton set if $C$ is nonempty closed and convex.
In this case, $P_{C}$ is nonexpansive mapping, that is,
$$ \| P_{C}(x) - P_{C}(y) \| \leq \| x-y \|, \quad \mbox{for all } x,y \in C.$$
Let $X$ be a nonempty closed convex subset of $H$. The \textit{tangent cone}
to $X$ at a point $x\in X$ is defined as
$$T_X(x):= \mathrm{cl}\left( \bigcup_{\lambda >0} \frac{X-x}{\lambda}\right).$$
The \textit{normal cone} to $X$ at $x\in X$ is defined by $N_X(x) := [T_X(x)]^{\circ}$.
In other words,
$$ N_X(x) = \left\{ x^{*} \in H : \langle x^{*}, y-x \rangle \le 0 \mbox{ for all } y \in X \right\}.$$

Let $F : X \to H$ be a mapping. The \textit{variational inequality problem} (in short, VIP) is to find
$x^{*} \in X$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{VIP}
\langle F(x^*),x-x^*\rangle \ge 0, \quad \text{for all } x \in X.
\end{equation}
We denote the solution set of the VIP by $X^*$.
Throughout the paper, we assume that $X^{*}$ is nonempty.
For further details on variational inequalities and their applications, we refer to
\cite{ALM14,FP03} and the references therein.

We often consider the VIP with $F$ satisfying certain monotonicity properties.
Therefore, we recall the following definitions of different kinds of monotonicities.

\begin{Definition}
The mapping $F : X \to H$ is said to be
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] \textit{monotone} on $X$ if for any $x,y\in X$,
$$\langle F(x)-F(y),x-y\rangle \ge 0;$$

\item[(b)] \textit{inverse strongly monotone} on $X$ if there exists $\mu >0$ such that for any $x,y\in X$,
$$\langle F(x)-F(y),x-y\rangle \ge \mu ||Fx-Fy||^2;$$

\item[(c)] \textit{pseudomonotone} on $X$ if for any $x,y\in X$,
$$\langle F(x),y-x\rangle \ge 0 \quad\Rightarrow \quad \langle F(y),y-x\rangle \ge 0;$$

\item[(d)] \textit{strongly pseudomonotone} on $X$ if there exists $\mu>0$ such that for any $x,y\in X$,
$$\langle F(x),y-x\rangle \ge 0 \quad\Rightarrow \quad \langle F(y),y-x\rangle \ge \mu ||y-x||^2;$$

\item[(e)] \textit{pseudomonotone}$^{+}$ on $X$ if $F$ is pseudomonotone on $X$ and for any $x,y\in X$,
$$\langle F(x),y-x\rangle \ge 0 \text{ and }\langle F(y),y-x\rangle = 0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad F(x) = F(y).$$
\end{itemize}
\end{Definition}

\begin{Remark}
It is evident that (b) $\Rightarrow$ (a), (a) $\Rightarrow$ (c), (d) $\Rightarrow$ (c) and
(e) $\Rightarrow$ (c). It is also easy to see that property (d) implies that the VIP has at most one solution.
Moreover, if $F$ is pseudomonotone then the solution set of the VIP is closed and convex
(see, e.g., \cite{ALM14,FP03}).
\end{Remark}

\section{Weak Sharp Solutions}

Recall the definition of weak sharp solutions for a variational inequality problem in terms of
Marcotte and Zhu \cite{MZ98}.

The solution set $X^*$ of the VIP is \textit{weakly sharp} provided that $F$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{WS}
-F(x^{*}) \in \mathrm{int} \left( \bigcap_{x \in X^{*}} \left[ T_X(x) \cap N_{X^*}(x) \right]^{\circ} \right),
\quad \text{for all } x^{*} \in X^{*}.
\end{equation}
Note that if $X^*$ is weakly sharp, then there exists a constant $\alpha >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{T2}
\alpha \mathbb{B} \subset F(x^*) + \left[ T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*) \right]^{\circ},
\quad \text{for each } x^* \in X^*.
\end{equation}
It is equivalent to say that for each $x^* \in X^*$,
\begin{equation}\label{T3}
\langle F(x^*),v\rangle \ge \alpha \| v \|, \quad \text{for all } v \in T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*),
\end{equation}
(see proof of Theorem 4.1 in \cite{MZ98}).
We call the constant $\alpha$ in (\ref{T2}) or equivalently in (\ref{T3})
the \textit{modulus of the weak sharpness} of $X^*$.

For the VIP, an error bound is an estimate for the distance from any point in $H$ to the solution set $X^*$.
Marcotte and Zhu \cite{MZ98} showed that if $F$ is continuous and pseudomonotone$^+$ on a compact set $X$,
then $X^*$ is weakly sharp if and only if there exists some $\alpha>0$ such that
$$\alpha\mathrm{dist}(x,X^*) \le G(x), \quad \text{for all } x\in X,$$
where $G$ is the dual gap function associated to VIP and  defined by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Eq:DGF}
G(x) & :=& \max_{z \in X} \langle F(z), x- z \rangle \nonumber\\
     &  =& \langle F(\tilde{y}), x-\tilde{y} \rangle,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\tilde{y}$ is any point in the set $\Lambda (x) := \mbox{arg}\max_{z \in X} \langle F(z), x- z \rangle$.
We note that the pseudomonotonicity$^+$ of $F$ on $X$ implies that $F$ is constant on $X^*$
(see, e.g., Proposition 2 in \cite{LW15}).

Recently, Liu and Wu \cite{LW15} gave an error bound in term of the primal gap function
for the VIP defined by
\begin{equation}\label{Eq:PGF}
\begin{array}{ll}
g(x) & := \max_{z \in X} \langle F(x), x- z \rangle\\
     &  = \langle F(x), x-z \rangle \quad \mbox{for } z \in \Gamma(x),
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma(x) := \{ z \in X : \langle F(x), x-z \rangle = g(x) \}$ for $x \in H$.
They showed that if $F$ is monotone on $X$ and constant on $\Gamma(x^*)$ for some $x^*\in X^*$, $g(x) < +\infty$,
$g$ is G\^ateaux differentiable and locally Lipschitz on $X^*$,
then $X^*$ is weakly sharp if and only if there is some $\alpha >0$ such that
$$\alpha\mathrm{dist}(x,X^*) \le g(x), \quad \text{for all } x\in X.$$
We also note that if $F$ is pseudomonotone on $X$ and constant on $\Gamma(x^*)$
for some $x^*\in X^*$ then $F$ is constant on $X^*$ (see Proposiotion 4 in \cite{LW15}).

We give some characterizations of weak sharpness of the solution set of VIP without using
the dual gap or the primal gap function.
We note that in \cite{MZ98} (respectively, in \cite{LW15}), the authors gave an error bound
in term of the dual gap function $G$ (respectively, the primal gap function $g$).
They therefore needed some more assumptions.
In fact, Marcotte and Zhu \cite{MZ98} assumed that the set $X$ is compact;
this implies the continuous differentiability of $G$.
Liu and Wu \cite{LW15} required that $g$ is G\^ateaux differentiable.
Our proofs follow the lines in \cite{MZ98} and \cite{LW15} but with some modifications.

\begin{Theorem} \label{TH1}
Let $X$ be a nonempty closed convex subset of $H$ and $F : X \to H$ be continuous on $X$ and pseudomonotone$^+$
on $X$. Let the solution set $X^*$ of the VIP be nonempty. Then $X^*$ is weakly sharp if and only if
there exists a positive constant $\alpha$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{T1}
\langle F(P_{X^*}(x)), x - P_{X^*}(x)\rangle \ge \alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*),\quad \text{for all } x \in X.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
Assume that $X^*$ is weakly sharp and let $x\in X$. Then, we have
$$x-P_{X^*}(x) \in T_X(P_{X^*}(x)) \cap N_{X^*}(P_{X^*}(x))$$
and
$$\| x-P_{X^*}(x) \| = \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*).$$
Thus, by (\ref{T3}), we have
$$\langle F(P_{X^*}(x)), x - P_{X^*}(x)\rangle \ge \alpha\, \| x-P_{X^*}(x) \| =\alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*).$$

Conversely, assume that (\ref{T1}) is satisfied for some $\alpha >0$.
We show that (\ref{T2}) holds.
Let $x^*\in X^*$. It is evident that (\ref{T2}) holds if $T_X(x^*)\cap N_{X^*}(x^*) =\{ {\bf 0} \}$.
We now assume that $T_X(x^*)\cap N_{X^*}(x^*) \ne \{ {\bf 0} \}$.
Let ${\bf 0} \ne v\in T_X(x^*)\cap N_{X^*}(x^*)$. Then for each $y^*\in X^*$, we have
$$\langle v,v\rangle >0 \quad \text{and} \quad \langle v,y^*-x^*\rangle \le 0.$$
This implies that the set $X^*$ is separated from $x^*+v$ by the hyperplane
$$H_v = \{x\in H : \langle v,x-x^*\rangle = 0\}.$$
Since $v\in T_X(x^*)$,  for each positive sequence $\{t_k\}$ converging to $0$,
there exists a sequence $\{v_k\}$ converging to $v$ such that $x^* + t_kv_k\in X$ for sufficiently large $k$.
Since $\langle v,v_k\rangle >0$ for sufficiently large $k$, $x^*+t_kv_k$ lies in the open set
$\{x\in H: \langle v,x-x^*\rangle >0 \}$.
Therefore, for sufficiently large $k$, we have
$$\mathrm{dist} \left( x^*+t_kv_k,X^* \right) \ge \mathrm{dist} \left( x^*+t_kv_k,H_v \right)
= \frac{t_k\langle v,v_k\rangle}{\|v\|}.$$
Then by (\ref{T1}), for sufficiently large $k$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\langle F(P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k)), x^*+t_kv_k - P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k) \right\rangle
& \ge & \alpha \mathrm{dist} \left( x^*+t_kv_k,X^* \right) \\
& \ge & \alpha t_k\, \frac{\langle v,v_k\rangle}{\|v\|},
\end{eqnarray*}
or, equivalently,
\begin{equation}\label{T4}
\left\langle F(P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k)), v_k + \frac{x^*- P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k)}{t_k} \right\rangle \ge\alpha\, \frac{\langle v,v_k\rangle}{\|v\|}.
\end{equation}
Since $t_k>0$ and $v\in N_{X^*}(x^*)$, one has $x^* = P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv)$.
Then, by the nonexpansiveness of the projection mapping, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left| \left| v_k + \frac{x^*- P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k)}{t_k} - v\right| \right|
&=& \left| \left| v_k -v+ \frac{P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv)- P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k)}{t_k} \right| \right| \\
&\le& \| v_k-v \| + \| v-v_k \| \\
&=& 2 \| v_k - v \| \to 0 \quad\text{as } k \to \infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus,
$$v_k + \frac{x^*- P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k)}{t_k} \to v \quad\text{as } k \to \infty.$$
Taking the limit as $k\to\infty$ in both sides of (\ref{T4}) and using the continuity of $F$ and $P_{X^*}$,
we obtain
$$\langle F(x^*),v\rangle \ge \alpha \| v \|.$$
It follows that
$$\alpha \mathbb{B} \subseteq F(x^*) + [T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*)]^o.$$
Since $F$ is pseudomonotone$^+$ on $X$, so it is constant on $X^*$.
This together with the latter inclusion imply that $X^*$ is weakly sharp.

\end{proof}

\begin{Theorem}\label{TH2}
Let $X$ be a nonempty, closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space $H$
and $F : X \to H$ be a mapping.
Assume that the solution set $X^*$ of the VIP is nonempty, closed and convex.
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (a)}] If $X^*$ is weakly sharp and $F$ is monotone,
then there exists a positive constant $\alpha >0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{T5}
\langle F(x), x - P_{X^*}(x)\rangle \ge \alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*), \quad \text{for all } x \in X.
\end{equation}
\item[{\rm (b)}] If $F$ is constant on $X^*$ and continuous on $X$ and (\ref{T5}) holds for some $\alpha >0$,
then $X^*$ is weakly sharp.
\end{itemize}
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
(a)\ Since $X^*$ is weakly sharp, there is a constant $\alpha >0$ such that for all $x^*\in X^*$,
$$\left\langle F(x^*), z \right\rangle \ge \alpha \|z\|, \quad \text{for all } z\in T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*).$$
For $x\in X$, we have
$$x-P_{X^*}(x) \in T_X(P_{X^*}(x)) \cap N_{X^*}(P_{X^*}(x)),$$
and
$$\|x-P_{X^*}(x)\| = \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*).$$
Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{T6}
\left\langle F(P_{X^*}(x)), x - P_{X^*}(x) \right\rangle
\ge \alpha \, \|x - P_{X^*}(x)\| = \alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*).
\end{equation}
Since $F$ is monotone, we have
$$ \left\langle F(P_{X^*}(x)), x - P_{X^*}(x) \right\rangle
\le - \left\langle F(x), P_{X^*}(x) - x \right\rangle.$$
Combining this with the inequality (\ref{T6}), we get
$$\alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x,X^*) \le \left\langle F(x), x - P_{X^*}(x) \right\rangle.$$

(b)\ Let $x^*\in X^*$. We first show that
\begin{equation}\label{T7}
\alpha \mathbb{B} \subset F(x^*) + \left[ T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*) \right]^{\circ}.
\end{equation}
This is obvious if $T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*) = \{ {\bf 0} \}$.
So, we assume that $T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*) \ne \{ {\bf 0} \}$.
Let ${\bf 0} \ne v\in T_X(x^*) \cap N_{X^*}(x^*)$.
Then for each positive sequence $\{t_k\}$ converging to $0$,
there is a sequence $\{v_k\}$ converging to $v$ and $x^* + t_kv_k \in X$.
As in proof of Theorem \ref{TH1}, we have, for sufficiently large $k$, that
$$\mathrm{dist} \left( x^*+t_kv_k,X^* \right) \ge  \frac{t_k\langle v,v_k\rangle}{\|v\|}.$$
By (\ref{T5}), we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\left\langle F(x^*+t_kv_k), x^*+t_kv_k - P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k) \right\rangle
& \ge & \alpha \, \mathrm{dist} \left( x^*+t_kv_k,X^* \right)\\
& \ge & \alpha \, t_k \frac{\langle v,v_k\rangle}{\|v\|},
\end{eqnarray*}
or, equivalently,
$$\left\langle  F(x^*+t_kv_k), v_k + \frac{x^*-P_{X^*}(x^*+t_kv_k) }{t_k}\right\rangle
\ge \alpha\frac{\langle v,v_k\rangle}{\|v\|}.$$
As in proof of Theorem \ref{TH1}, letting $k\to \infty$ in the latter inequality, we get
$$\langle F(x^*), v\rangle \ge \alpha \|v\|.$$
Thus, (\ref{T7}) holds. Since $F$ is constant on $X^*$, we conclude that $X^*$ is weakly sharp.

\end{proof}

\section{Finite Termination Property}

In this section, we study the finite termination property of a sequence generated
by an algorithm for finding the solutions of the VIP. In particular, we first establish
an abstract result on the finite termination of the sequences. We then apply such result
to discuss the finite termination property of proximal point method, exact proximal point method
and gradient projection method.

Throughout this section, we assume that $X$ is a nonempty, closed and convex subset of a Hilbert space $H$
and $F : X \to H$ is a mapping. We mention the following result due to Matsushita and Xu \cite{MX13}
which will be used in the sequel.

\begin{Lemma}{\rm \cite{MX13}}
Let $x \in X$, then
$$\max \left\{ \langle v,-F(x)\rangle : v\in T_X(x), \| v \| \le 1 \right\}
= \left\| P_{T_{X}(x)}(-F(x)) \right\|.$$
\end{Lemma}

Our first result of this section is stated as follows.

\begin{Theorem} \label{TH3}
Let $F$ be monotone on $X$, $X^*$ be weakly sharp and $\{x_k\}$ be a sequence in $X$.
Then, $x_k \in X^*$ for all $k$ sufficiently large if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{T12}
\lim_{k\to\infty} P_{T_X (x_k)} \left( -F(x_k) \right) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
If there exists $k_0$ such that $x_k \in X^*$ for all $k\ge k_0$,
then $-F(x_k) \in N_X(x_k)$ for all $k\ge k_0$. Hence, (\ref{T12}) holds trivially.

Suppose, on the contrary, that the inverse implication does not hold.
Then there exists a subsequence of $\{x_k\}$ which is still denoted by $\{x_k\}$ such that
$x_k \not\in X^*$ for all $k$.
For each $k$, set $y_k := P_{X^*}(x_k) \in X^*$.
Then, we have $x_k - y_k \in T_X(y_k) \cap N_{X^*}(y_k)$.
By Theorem \ref{TH1}, there exists $\alpha > 0$ such that
$$\alpha \| x_k - y_k \| = \alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x_k,X^*) \le \langle F(y_k), x_k - y_k\rangle,
\quad \mbox{for all } k.$$
Thus, by the monotonicity of $F$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha &\le&  \left\langle F(y_k), \frac{x_k-y_k}{||x_k-y_k||}\right\rangle\\
&=& \left\langle -F(x_k), \frac{x_k-y_k}{||x_k-y_k||}\right\rangle
+\frac{1}{||x_k-y_k||} \langle F(x_k) - F(y_k),y_k - x_k\rangle\\
&\le&  \max \left\{ \langle v,-F(x_k)\rangle : v\in T_X(x_k), \, \|v\| \le 1 \right\} \\
&=& P_{T_X (x_k)} \left( -F(x_k) \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Letting $k\to \infty$ and using (\ref{T12}), we obtain $\alpha \le 0$ which
contradicts the fact that $\alpha > 0$.
Therefore, $x_k\in X^*$ for all sufficiently large $k$.

\end{proof}

\begin{Remark}
Marcotte and Zhu in \cite{MZ98} obtained the finite termination of an algorithm for the VIP
under assumption that $F$ is pseudomonotone$^+$ and continuous on a compact convex set in ${\mathbb R}^n$.
Xiu ang Zhang \cite{XZ05} improved the result of Marcotte and Zhu \cite{MZ98}
by assuming $F$ is continuous and pseudomonotone.
Zhou and Wang \cite{ZW08} established the finite termination without using any monotonicity property
on the underlying mapping.
All the mentioned results require (\ref{T12}) and the strong convergence of the sequence $\{x_k\}$.
Matsushita and Xu \cite{MX13} relaxed the strong convergence of $\{x_k\}$ by the strong convergence of
$\{P_{X^*}(x_k)\}$ to some point in $X^*$ and, in addition, they assumed that the mapping $F$ is monotone.
Since we do not need the strong convergence of $\{P_{X^*}(x_k)\}$, our result improves the result given by
Matsushita and Xu \cite{MX13}.
\end{Remark}

\subsection{Proximal Point Method}

We now apply our results to study the finite termination property of proximal point method for
solving a monotone variational inequality. We consider the following proximal point algorithm \cite{R76}
for solving the VIP: $x_1 \in H$ and
\begin{equation}\label{T8}
x_{n+1} = J_{\gamma_n}(x_n+e_n), \quad n = 1,2,\dots ,
\end{equation}
where $\gamma_n \in (0,\infty)$, $e_n \in H$ and  $J_{\gamma_n} = (I+\gamma_n T)^{-1}$ with
$T: H \rightrightarrows H$ defined by
\begin{equation}\label{T9}
T(x) : = \left\{
  \begin{array}{lll}
   F(x) + N_X(x), && \quad \text{if } x\in X,\\
    \emptyset,    && \quad \text{otherwise}.
  \end{array}
  \right.
\end{equation}
Note that, for all $x\in H$ and $r>0$, the inclusion
\begin{equation}\label{T10}
x\in x_r + rT(x_r)
\end{equation}
has a unique solution $x_r\in H$ (see, e.g., \cite{R70}).

From (\ref{T9}) and (\ref{T10}), we have
$$x_n + e_n \in \left( I + \gamma_n(F+N_X) \right) (x_{n+1}), \quad \mbox{for all }n. $$
Then
$$x_n + e_n - x_{n+1} - \gamma_n F(x_{n+1}) \in \gamma_n N_X(x_{n+1}) = N_X(x_{n+1}).$$
It follows that
\begin{equation} \label{PA}
\langle x_n + e_n  - x_{n+1} - \gamma_n F(x_{n+1}), y - x_{n+1}\rangle \le 0\qquad \text{for all} \,\,y\in X.
\end{equation}
This is equivalent to
\begin{equation}\label{PPA}
x_{n+1} = P_X(x_n - \gamma_nF(x_{n+1}) + e_n),\quad n=1,2,\dots
\end{equation}

The following result provides the finite convergence property of proximal point method
(\ref{PPA}).

\begin{Theorem} \label{TH4}
Let $F$ be monotone and $\{x_n\}$ be a sequence generated by (\ref{PPA}) such that
$\liminf_{n\to\infty}\gamma_n >0$. Suppose that the following conditions hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item[{\rm (i)}] $\{x_{n+1} - x_n\}$ converges strongly to $0$;
\item[{\rm (ii)}] $\{e_n\}$ converges strongly to $0$.
\end{itemize}
If $X^*$ is weakly sharp, then $x_n \in X^*$ for all sufficiently large $n$.
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since
$$\left\langle x_n + e_n  - x_{n+1} - \gamma_n F(x_{n+1}), y - x_{n+1} \right\rangle \le 0,
\quad \text{for all } y\in X,$$
we have, for all $y \in X$, that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T101}
\left\langle F(x_{n+1}), x_{n+1} - y \right\rangle
&\le& \frac{1}{\gamma_n} \left( \langle x_n - x_{n+1},x_{n+1}-y\rangle
+ \langle e_{n}, x_{n+1}-y \rangle \right)\nonumber\\
&\le& \frac{1}{\gamma_n} \left( \|x_n - x_{n+1}\| \, \|x_{n+1} - y\| + \|e_{n}\| \, \|x_{n+1}-y\| \right).
\end{eqnarray}
Assume that the conclusion is false. Then, there exists a subsequence $\{x_{n_i}\}$ of $\{x_n\}$
such that $x_{n_i}\not\in X^*$ for all $i$. For each $i$, set $y_{n_i} = P_{X^*}(x_{n_i})$.
Then  $x_{n_i}\ne y_{n_i}$ for all $i$. By Theorem \ref{TH2} (a), for some $\alpha >0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{T111}
\left\langle F(x_{n_i}), x_{n_i}-y_{n_i} \right\rangle
\ge \alpha \, \mathrm{dist}(x_{n_i},X^*) = \alpha \, \|x_{n_i} - y_{n_i}\|.
\end{equation}
Taking $n: = n_i$ and $y: = y_{n_i+1}$ in (\ref{T101}) and using (\ref{T111}), we get
$$\alpha \|x_{n_i+1} - y_{n_i+1}\| \le \frac{1}{\gamma_{n_i}}
\left( \|x_{n_i}-x_{n_i+1}\| \, \|x_{n_i+1}-y_{n_i+1}\|
+ \|e_{n_i}\| \, \|x_{n_i+1}-y_{n_i+1}\| \right),$$
and then
$$\alpha \le \frac{1}{\gamma_{n_i}}  \left( \|x_{n_i}-x_{n_i+1}\| + \|e_{n_i}\| \right).$$
Since $\liminf_{n \to \infty} \gamma_n >0$, $\lim_{n\to\infty} e_n = 0$ and
$x_{n+1}-x_n \to 0$ as $n\to \infty$,
it follows from the latter inequality that $\alpha \le 0$ which contradicts the fact that $\alpha > 0$.
Therefore, $x_n\in X^*$ for all sufficiently large $n$.

\end{proof}

\begin{Remark}
Theorem \ref{TH4} is an improvement of Theorem 3.1 in \cite{MX15} because we do not require
that $\{P_{X^*}(x_k)\}$ converges strongly to some point in $X^*$.
\end{Remark}

\subsection{Exact Proximal Point Method}

We now study the finite termination propery for the  exact proximal point method:
\begin{equation}\label{T112}
x_{n+1} = P_X \left( x_n - \gamma_n F(x_{n+1}) \right), \quad n = 1,2,\ldots
\end{equation}
This is the case in (\ref{PPA}) we take  $e_n = 0,\, n = 1,2,\ldots$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{TH5}
Let $F : X \to H$ be monotone and $X^*$ be weakly sharp with modulus $\alpha>0$.
Let $\{x_n\}$ be the sequence generated by (\ref{T112}) with, for some positive number $a$, $\gamma_n \in [a,+\infty)$ for all $n$.
Then, $\{x_n\}$ converges to a point in $X^*$ in atmost $\ell$ iterations with
$$\ell \le \frac{\mathrm{dist(x_1,X^*)^2}}{a^2\alpha^2} + 1.$$
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
From Rockafellar \cite{R76}, we know that for $x^*\in X^*$
\begin{equation}\label{T113}
\|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 \le \|x_n - x^*\|^2 - \|x_{n+1}-x_{n}\|^2, \quad n=1,2, \ldots .
\end{equation}
This implies that $\lim_{n\to \infty} \|x_n-x^*\|$ exists
and $\lim_{n\to\infty}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| = 0$. By Theorem \ref{TH4}, $x_n\in X^*$ for all sufficiently large $n$.

Now, for $1<N \in \mathbb{N}$, we have from (\ref{T113}) that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\|x_1-x^*\|^2
&\ge& \|x_2-x^*\|^2 + \|x_2-x_1\|^2\\
&\ge& \|x_3-x^*\|^2 + \|x_3-x_2\|^2 + \|x_2-x_1\|^2\\
&\vdots& \\
&\ge& \|x_{N+1}-x^*\|^2 + \sum_{i=1}^{N} \|x_{i+1}-x_i\|^2\\
&\ge&  \sum_{i=1}^{N} \|x_{i+1}-x_i\|^2.
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore, for all $N>1$,
\begin{equation}\label{T114}
\mathrm{dist} \left( x_1,X^* \right)^2 = \inf_{x^*\in X^*} ||x_1 - x^*||^2 \ge \sum_{i=1}^{N} ||x_{i+1}-x_i||^2.
\end{equation}
Since $\lim_{n\to \infty} \|x_{n+1}-x_{n}\| = 0$,
we let $\ell$ be the smallest integer such that $||x_{\ell+1}-x_\ell|| < a \, \alpha$.

If $x_{\ell+1} \not\in X^*$, then we set $y_{\ell+1} = P_{X^*}(x_{\ell+1})$.
By Theorem \ref{TH2} (a) and (\ref{PA}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha \|x_{\ell+1} - y_{\ell+1}\|
&=& \alpha \, \mathrm{dist} \left( x_{\ell+1},X^* \right) \\
&\le& \left\langle F(x_{\ell+1}),x_{\ell+1}-y_{\ell+1} \right\rangle\\
&\le& \frac{1}{\gamma_{\ell}} \langle x_\ell - x_{\ell+1},x_{\ell+1} - y_{\ell+1}\rangle\\
&\le& \frac{1}{\gamma_{\ell}} \|x_\ell - x_{\ell+1}\| \, \|x_{\ell+1} - y_{\ell+1}\|.
\end{eqnarray*}
This implies that $\gamma_{\ell} \, \alpha \le \|x_{\ell+1}-x_{\ell}\| < a \, \alpha$,
or, equivalently, $\gamma_{\ell} < a$ which contradicts our assumption that
$\gamma_{\ell} \geq a$.
Thus, $x_{\ell+1} \in X^*$. Hence, we have
$$\mathrm{dist} \left( x_1,X^* \right)^2 \ge
\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1} \|x_{i+1}-x_i\|^2 \ge (\ell-1)a^2 \, \alpha^2.$$
Therefore,
$$\ell \le \frac{\mathrm{dist} \left( x_1,X^* \right)^2}{a^2\alpha^2} +1.$$

\end{proof}

\begin{Remark}
If follows from Theorem \ref{TH5} that if $\gamma_1$ is chosen to be sufficiently large, i.e.,
$a$ sufficiently large, then the exact proximal point algorithm has one step termination.
Hence, Theorem \ref{TH5} is an extension of Theorem 4.3 in \cite{XZ05}.
\end{Remark}

\subsection{Gradient Projection Method}

We now establish the finite termination property of the following gradient projection method:
\begin{equation}\label{GPM}
x_{n+1} = P_X(x_n - \gamma_nF(x_n)),\qquad n = 1,2,\ldots .
\end{equation}
This is the case when we take $e_n:= \gamma_n(F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n))$, $n=1,2,\ldots$ in (\ref{PPA}).

The finite termination property for the method (\ref{GPM}) was studied in \cite{MX15,XZ02}.
Xiu and Zhang \cite{XZ02}  established the finite termination of a modification of (\ref{GPM})
by adding a vanishing error term under the nondegeneracy assumption. To obtain their results,
they also assumed the strongly convergence of the sequence generated by the method.
Matsushita and Xu \cite{MX15} dropped the assumption that the sequence converges strongly and
obtained the finite termination property of (\ref{GPM}) in Hilbert spaces under the assumption that
$F$ is inverse strongly monotone. Here, we study the finite termination property of (\ref{GPM})
under the assumption that $F$ is strongly pseudomonotone and monotone at the same time.

Assume $F$ is strongly pseudomonotone. Then the VIP has unique solution, say $x^*$.
If, in addition, $F$ is monotone and $X^* = \{x^*\}$ is weakly sharp with modulus $\alpha$, then by Theorem \ref{TH2} (a), we have
$$\alpha \|x-x^*\| \le \langle F(x), x-x^*\rangle,\quad \mbox{for all } x\in X.$$

\begin{Lemma}\label{LM1}
Let $F : X \to H$ be strongly pseudomonotone with the modulus $\mu$ and Lipschitz continuous with the constant $L$.
Let $\{x_n\}$ be the sequence generated by (\ref{GPM}).
If $x^*$ is a unique solution of the VIP, then
\begin{equation}\label{T115}
\left[ 1+\gamma_n(2\mu - \gamma_nL^2) \right] \, \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 \le \|x_n-x^*\|^2,
\,\, \mbox{for all} \,\,n= 1,2,\ldots
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{T116}
\left( 1-\gamma_n^2 \right) \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \le
\left( L^2-2\gamma_n\mu-1 \right) \, \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 + \|x_n-x^*\|^2,
\,\, \mbox{for all }\,\, n= 1,2,\ldots
\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
We only prove (\ref{T116}). For the proof of (\ref{T115}), see \cite{KV14}.

Since $e_n = \gamma_n(F(x_{n+1})-F(x_n))$, it follows from (\ref{PA}) that
$$ \left\langle x_n - \gamma_nF(x_n) - x_{n+1}, y-x_{n+1} \right\rangle \le 0,\quad \mbox{for all } y\in X.$$
Taking $y=x^*$ in the latter inequality, one obtains
\begin{equation}\label{T117}
\left\langle x_n - x_{n+1},x^* - x_{n+1} \right\rangle \le
\gamma_n \left\langle F(x_n),x^*-x_{n+1} \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Since $x^*\in X^*$, we have
$$\left\langle F(x^*),x-x^* \right\rangle \ge 0, \quad \mbox{for all } x\in X.$$
Hence, by the strong pseudomonotonicity of $F$, we get
$$\langle F(x),x-x^*\rangle \ge \mu||x-x^*||^2, \quad \mbox{for all } x\in X.$$
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the Lipschitz continuity of $F$, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}\label{T118}
\gamma_n\langle F(x_n),x^*-x_{n+1}\rangle
&=& -\gamma_n \langle F(x_{n+1}),x^*-x_{n+1}\rangle +\gamma_n\langle F(x_n)-F(x_{n+1}),x^*-x_{n+1}\rangle \nonumber\\
&\le& -\gamma_n\mu \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 +\gamma_n \|F(x_n)-F(x_{n+1})\| \, \|x^*-x_{n+1}\| \nonumber\\
&\le& -\gamma_n\mu \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 +\gamma_n L \|x_n-x_{n+1}\| \, \|x^*-x_{n+1}\| \nonumber\\
&\le& -\gamma_n\mu \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 +\frac{1}{2} \gamma_n^2 \|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2
+ \frac{1}{2} L^2 \|x^*-x_{n+1}\|^2 \nonumber\\
&=& \frac{1}{2} \left[(L^2-2\gamma_n\mu)\|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 + \gamma_n^2 \|x_n-x_{n+1}\|^2 \right].
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand,
\begin{equation}\label{T119}
\langle x_n - x_{n+1},x^* - x_{n+1}\rangle =
\frac{1}{2} \left( \|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 + \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 - \|x_n-x^*\|^2 \right).
\end{equation}
From (\ref{T117}) - (\ref{T119}), we have
$$\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 + \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 - \|x_n-x^*\|^2
\le (L^2-2\gamma_n\mu)\|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2 +\gamma_n^2||x_n-x_{n+1}||^2.$$
Then, we obtain (\ref{T116}).

\end{proof}

\begin{Theorem}\label{TH6}
Let $F : X \to H$ be strongly pseudomonotone with the modulus $\mu$ and Lipschitz with the constant $L$.
Let $\{x_n\}$ be the sequence generated by (\ref{GPM}). Suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{T120}
\frac{L^2}{2\mu} \le \gamma_n\le \sigma <1, \quad \mbox{for all } n = 1,2,\ldots
\end{equation}
where $\sigma$ is a positive constant.
Assume further that $F$ is monotone and $X^*= \{x^*\}$ is weakly sharp with modulus $\alpha$.
Then, $\{x_n\}$ converges to $x^*$ in atmost $\ell$ iterates with
$$\ell \le \frac{\|x_1-x^*\|^2(2\mu+L^3)^2}{(1-\sigma^2)\alpha^2L^4}+1.$$
\end{Theorem}

\begin{proof}
It follows from (\ref{T120}) that $2\mu - \gamma_n L^2 \ge 0$ for all $n$.
Hence, (\ref{T115}) implies
$$\|x_{n+1} - x^*\| \le \|x_n-x^*\|, \quad \mbox{for all } n,$$
and then $\lim_{n\to\infty}\|x_n - x^*\| = a\in [0,\infty)$.
By (\ref{T120}) and (\ref{T116}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{T121}
(1-\sigma^2)\|x_{n+1}-x_n\|^2 \le \|x_n-x^*\|^2 - \|x_{n+1}-x^*\|^2, \quad \mbox{for all } n.
\end{equation}
Using (\ref{T121}) and progressing as in the proof of Theorem \ref{TH5}, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{T122}
\|x_1-x^*\|^2 \ge \left( 1-\sigma^2 \right) \sum_{i=1}^{N}\|x_{i+1}-x_i\|^2,\quad \text{for all } N>1.
\end{equation}
Moreover, letting $n\to \infty$ in the both sides of (\ref{T121}), we get
$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\|x_{n+1}-x_n\| = 0.$$
Let $\ell$ be the smallest integer such that
\begin{equation}\label{T123}
\| x_{\ell+1}-x_\ell \| < \frac{L^2\alpha}{2\mu+L^3}.
\end{equation}
If $x_{\ell+1}\ne x^*$, then by the weak sharpness of the solution set $X^{*}$,
the Lipschitz continuity of $F$ and (\ref{T101}), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\alpha\|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\|
&\le& \langle F(x_{\ell+1}), x_{\ell+1}-x^*\rangle\\
&\le& \frac{1}{\gamma_{\ell}}(\|x_\ell - x_{\ell+1}\| \, \|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\| + \|e_\ell \| \, \|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\|)\\
&=&\frac{1}{\gamma_{\ell}}(\|x_\ell - x_{\ell+1}\| \, \|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\|
+ \gamma_{\ell} \|F(x_\ell) - F(x_{\ell+1}) \| \, \|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\|)\\
&\le& \left(\frac{1}{\gamma_\ell} +  L\right) \|x_\ell - x_{\ell+1}\| \, \|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\|\\
&\le& \left(\frac{2\mu}{L^2} + L\right) \|x_\ell - x_{\ell+1}\| \, \|x_{\ell+1}-x^*\|
\end{eqnarray*}
This implies
$$\|x_{\ell+1}-x_\ell \| \ge \frac{\alpha L^2}{2\mu + L^3},$$
which contradicts (\ref{T123}).
Thus, $x_{\ell+1} = x^*$.
It follows from (\ref{T121}) that
$$\|x_1-x^*\|^2 \ge (1-\sigma^2)\sum_{i=1}^{\ell-1} \|x_{i+1}-x_i\|^2
\ge (1-\sigma^2)(\ell-1) \frac{\alpha^2L^4}{(2\mu + L^3)^2},$$
and so,
$$\ell \le \frac{\|x_1-x^*\|^2(2\mu+L^3)^2}{(1-\sigma^2)\alpha^2L^4}+1.$$
\end{proof}

\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
In this research, first author was funded by the National Plan for Science, Technology and
Innovation (MAARIFAH) - King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology - through
the Science \& Technology Unit at King Fahd University of Petroleum \& Minerals (KFUPM) - the
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, award number 12-MAT3023-24, Luong V. Nguyen was supported by funds allocated to the implementation of the international co-funded project in the years 2014-2018, 3038/7.PR/2014/2, and by the EU grant PCOFUND-GA-2012-600415. The paper was completed while the third author was visiting Mathematics \& Statistics Department,  KFUPM. He thanks the Department for hospitality.


How Not to Win a Million Dollars: A Counterexample to a Conjecture of L. Breiman

Abstract: Consider a gambling game in which we are allowed to repeatedly bet a portion of our bankroll at favorable odds. We investigate the question of how to minimize the expected number of rounds needed to increase our bankroll to a given target amount.Specifically, we disprove a 50-year old conjecture of L. Breiman, that there exists a threshold strategy that optimizes the expected number of rounds; that is, a strategy that always bets to try to win in one round whenever the bankroll is at least a certain threshold, and that makes Kelly bets (a simple proportional betting scheme) whenever the bankroll is below the threshold.

\section{The Conjecture}

Consider a favorable gambling game,
such as betting at 3:1 odds on the outcome of a fair coin toss.
If we are allowed to play this as many times as we like (decided adaptively),
we can eventually increase our winnings to any desired
target amount, with certainty.  For instance, proportional betting
strategies such as the Kelly criterion (see Kelly~\cite{Kelly} or
Breiman~\cite{Breiman}), have long been known to accomplish this.

Breiman~\cite{Breiman} ``hopefully conjectured'' the following.
Suppose our goal is to achieve a set target bankroll, say \$1M, starting
with a fraction $\xi$ of that amount.  Let $T(\xi)$ be the expected
number of rounds we have to play before we attain our goal.
Then there exists a threshold $0 < \xi_0 < 1$, and an optimal strategy of the
following form:
\begin{itemize}
\item When the current bankroll is less than $\xi_0$, bet to optimize
  $\mathbb{E} \log($bankroll$)$.
This is achieved by betting
a particular fraction of the current bankroll, which is only dependent
on the proposition being offered.  This is sometimes known as ``Kelly betting.''
\item When the current bankroll is at least $\xi_0$, bet to reach
the target bankroll in the current round.
\end{itemize}
We will call such strategies ``threshold strategies.''

Breiman describes this conjecture as ``expressing a moderate faith
in the simplicity of things.''  Indeed, his proposed strategy
seems quite plausible.  However, our main result is a proof that
this strategy is not optimal.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main}
There exists a favorable gambling game and
initial bankroll $\xi$, for which the optimal $T(\xi)$ is at most
$13/14$ times that of any threshold strategy.
\end{theorem}

We have not attempted here to optimize the constant $13/14$, but it
would be nice to know what its best possible value is.

\section{Preliminaries}

We will use the following version of Doob's Optional Stopping Theorem
(see \cite[Theorem 10.10]{Williams}).

\begin{theorem}[Doob's Optional Stopping Theorem] \label{thm:opt-stop}
Let $(X_t)_{t \ge 0}$ be a supermartingale.
Let $T$ be a stopping time with $\mathbb{E} T < \infty$, and suppose
there is a constant $C$ such that, for all $t \ge 1$, $|X_{t+1} - X_t|
\le C$.  Then $X_T$ is integrable and $\mathbb{E} X_T \le \mathbb{E} X_0$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Counterexample}

For our gambling game, consider a biased coin which comes up heads
with probability $2/3$.  Suppose we are allowed to bet on heads, and
be paid off at $2:1$ odds.  That is, for each unit bet, the net change
in our bankroll is $-1$ with probability $1/3$, and $+2$ with
probability $2/3$.

In this case, it is easily checked that the Kelly criterion says to
bet $1/2$ of the current bankroll at each timestep, so that the
new bankroll will be: half the current bankroll with probability $1/3$,
and twice the current bankroll with probability $2/3$.

For an initial bankroll, $x$, let $T(x)$ be the expected number of
plays of this game until a bankroll of at least $1$ is achieved,
under the strategy minimizing this quantity

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:3k}
For our example game, when $x = 1/2^k$, for $k$ a positive integer,
the (unique) optimal strategy is to bet $1/2$ of the current bankroll every
round until a bankroll of $1$ is reached.  Therefore, $T(1/2^k) = 3k$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
First we observe that the given strategy results in an expectation of
$3k$ rounds until the bankroll reaches $1$.  This is because the
base-2 logarithm of the bankroll is a biased random walk on the
negative integers, that moves one unit  towards $0$ with probability $2/3$
at each timestep, and one unit away with probability $1/3$.
The analysis of the hitting time to $0$ for this random walk is standard.

To see that this is the best possible result, consider any
possible strategy, and let $x(t)$ denote the bankroll after $t$ steps.
Let $\tau$ denote the hitting time to the target bankroll:  $\tau := \min \{t : x(t) \ge 1\}$.
Define $Y_t := 3 \log_2(x(t)) - t$.  Observe that, regardless of the
strategy chosen, $(Y_t)$ is a supermartingale,  since Kelly betting
maximizes the conditional expectation of $Y_{t+1}$ given $Y_t$,
and, for Kelly betting, $Y_t$ would be a martingale.
Further, note that $Y_0 = - 3k$, and $Y_\tau = - \tau$.

Now, we may assume $\mathbb{E} \tau < \infty$, since otherwise
this strategy is clearly worse than Kelly betting.  Suppose
for now that $|Y_{t+1} - Y_t|$ is bounded almost surely.
Then applying the Doob's Optional Stopping Theorem~\ref{thm:opt-stop},
we have
$\mathbb{E} \tau = - \mathbb{E} Y_{\tau} \ge - Y_0 = 3k$, which proves
that, again, the Kelly strategy is superior.

Finally, we will show that any strategy with $|Y_{t+1} - Y_t|$
unbounded can be strictly improved upon by another strategy with
$|Y_{t+1} - Y_t| \le 25$, and therefore our previous assumption
that the steps taken by $Y$ are bounded was made without loss of
generality.

First note that $Y_{t+1} \le Y_t + \log_2(3) - 1$ absolutely, since even if we bet the entire
bankroll, we cannot more than triple our stake.
Suppose, for some value of $x(t)$, this strategy bets more than $1 - 3^{-15}$ of
the bankroll.  Let's look at the expected number of rounds
needed until $x(t') \ge 2 x(t)$.  With probability $2/3$, $t' = t+1$,
but with probability $1/3$, the bankroll initially drops by a
factor of $3^{15}$, and hence, no matter what, it
will take more than $15$ rounds to return to
its initial value of $x(t)$.  Thus, in expectation, it takes more than
$6$ rounds to exceed $x(t)$ for the first time.  And, moreover,
the value of $x(t')$ is in the interval $(x(t), 3x(t))$.

Now, note that Kelly betting quadruples the stake in an
expected $6$ rounds, which clearly dominates the above
strategy.  So, it would be strictly superior to ``bet to double'' until
the stake reaches $4 x(t)$, and then proceed optimally from
that point onward.  Thus, any strategy that ever bets more than
$1 - 3^{-15}$ of its bankroll can be improved upon by one that does
not, which gives us bounds of
$-15 \log_2(3) - 1 \le Y_{t+1} - Y_t \le \log_2(3) - 1$ on the
revised strategy, which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

Lemma~\ref{lem:3k} is interesting because it shows that Kelly betting
is in fact optimal for infinitely many starting bankrolls.
Furthermore, when coupled with our next two (easy) lemmas, this actually
implies that there exist threshold strategies for which $T(\xi)$ is within
a constant factor of optimal.  These results are not specific to the
example game chosen for this paper; precise statements and proofs
are left as an exercise to the reader.

On the flip side, as we will see,
Lemma~\ref{lem:3k} is also the key to our proof that every threshold
strategy is actually suboptimal.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:decr} \label{lem:3/2lb}
In general, $T(x)$ is a decreasing function of $x$.
Furthermore, for our example game, $T(x) > 3/2$ for all $x < 1$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Clearly $T(x)$ is non-increasing, since extra money can always be
ignored with no penalty.  We omit a detailed proof that $T$ is
strictly decreasing, noting only if there is extra money being ignored,
then after a sufficiently long sequence of consecutive losses under, say, a proportional
betting scheme, this extra money will become the vast majority of the
bankroll, at which point we can appeal to Lemma~\ref{lem:3k} to see
that the expected hitting time to $1$ is strictly better than without
the extra money.

To see that $T(x) > 3/2$, note that we cannot achieve a bankroll of
$1$ without winning at least one coin toss.  But the expected number
of coin tosses until the first heads is $1/(2/3) = 3/2$.  So this is
clearly a lower bound on the hitting time to $1$.  The inequality is
strict, since if we keep losing,
eventually our bets must become too small to
guarantee reaching $1$ on the first heads.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:bet-to-1}
For our example game, any optimal strategy always bets to $1$ when the
bankroll is $x \ge 1/2$.  Additionally, $T(2/3) = 2$ and $T(7/9) =
5/3$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Suppose for a bankroll $x \in [1/2,1)$, and our strategy bets to some value $y < 1$.
Then, since the first coin flip either results in a bankroll of $y$,
or a bankroll $< x$, we have
\begin{align*}
T(x) &= 1 + \frac{2}{3} T(y) + \frac{1}{3}T(x - (y-x)/2) \\
&> 1 + \frac{2}{3} T(y) + \frac{1}{3}T(x) \\
&> 2 + \frac{1}{3}T(x) & \mbox{By Lemma~\ref{lem:3/2lb}}
\end{align*}
This implies $T(x) > 3$.  But, by Lemma~\ref{lem:3k}, we know that
$T(1/2) = 3$, so we have a contradiction to the fact that $T$ is a decreasing function
(Lemma~\ref{lem:decr}).
Thus the correct strategy must be to bet to $1$.

Since, from $x=2/3$ or $x=7/9$, the strategy of betting to $1$
either results in winning directly, or reaching a bankroll of $1/2$,
and since Lemma~\ref{lem:3k} tells us that $T(1/2) = 3$, an easy
calculation yields the values of $T(2/3)$ and $T(7/9)$, for which we
shall have a use later.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:1/3-1/2}
For our example game, if Breiman's conjecture were true, then the
critical threshold $\xi_0$ would necessarily be in $(1/3, 1/2]$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Since winning bets are paid off at $2:1$ odds, it is impossible to
``bet to $1$'' with a bankroll of less than $1/3$.  Moreover,
unless the bankroll is strictly greater than $1/3$, we cannot bet
to $1$ without risking the entire bankroll, in which case
$\mathbb{E} \tau = + \infty$.  So $\xi_0 > 1/3$.
On the other hand, if $x(t) > 1/2$, then betting the Kelly criterion
(risking half the bankroll) is too much, as winning results in a
bankroll exceeding $1$, which has no added utility.  So $\xi_0 \le 1/2$.
(Lemma~\ref{lem:bet-to-1} also implies $\xi_0 \le 1/2$.)
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:7/18}
For any $\xi_0 \in (1/3, 1/2]$, playing Breiman's strategy results in $T(7/18) = 14/3$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We consider two cases.  {\bf Case A:}\   $\xi_0 \le 7/18$.  In this case, we
first bet to $1$, winning the game with probability $2/3$, and
otherwise losing $11/36$, for a new bankroll of $1/12$.
Assuming we lost, we will now risk half the bankroll at each step,
until our bankroll has doubled up to a value of $2/3$.  (Note that,
by Lemma~\ref{lem:1/3-1/2}, $\xi_0 > 1/3$.)  Note that, by
Lemma~\ref{lem:3k}, doubling up thrice takes $9$ rounds in
expectation.  Since Lemma~\ref{lem:bet-to-1} tells us $T(2/3) = 2$,
we can now compute
\[
T(7/18) = 1 + \frac13 \left(9 + T(2/3)\right) = \frac{14}{3}.
\]

\noindent{\bf Case B:}\  $\xi_0 > 7/18$.  In this case, we first bet to double up to
$7/9$, which, by Lemma~\ref{lem:3k} takes 3 rounds in expectation.
Since Lemma~\ref{lem:bet-to-1} tells us $T(7/9) = 5/3$, we therefore
have
\[
T(7/18) = 3 + T(7/9) = \frac{14}{3},
\]
just as in Case A, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

Combining Lemmas~\ref{lem:1/3-1/2} and \ref{lem:7/18} shows us that,
if Breiman's conjecture were true, then $T(7/18) = 14/3$ for our example
game.  Our next result contradicts this.

\begin{lemma}
For our example game, $T(7/18) \le 13/3$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
On the first bet, suppose we bet $5/36$.  If we win, our
bankroll goes up to $2/3$.
If we lose, our bankroll goes down to $1/4$.
Since Lemmas~\ref{lem:3k} and \ref{lem:bet-to-1} tell us
that with optimal play,
$T(1/4) = 6$ and $T(2/3) = 2$, we therefore have
\[
T(7/18) \le 1 + \frac23 T(2/3) + \frac13 T(1/4)
= 1 + \frac23 \; 2 + \frac13 \; 6
= \frac{13}{3}.
\]
\end{proof}

Combining the above Lemmas shows us that Breiman's conjecture is
false, and with a tiny bit more work, that any strategy meeting
Breiman's form has an expected cost at least $14/13$ of optimal
starting from the initial bankroll of $7/18$,
thus proving Theorem~\ref{thm:main}

It would be nice to know the ``price'' for playing a threshold
strategy.  We have seen that this is at least $14/13$ for our example
game.  Although we have made no serious attempt to improve this value, it
seems likely that it is not far off the mark.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{BCopt}
\caption{Computer-generated upper and lower bounds on the optimal
  expected number of rounds
  needed to reach a bankroll of $1$ from an initial bankroll of $x$,
  in our example game.
}
\label{fig:BCopt}
\end{figure}

Figure~\ref{fig:BCopt} shows a graph of upper and lower bounds on the
optimal $T(x)$.  It was obtained by a computer program, which,
beginning with the upper and lower bounds that follow immediately
from Lemma~\ref{lem:3k} and \ref{lem:decr}, recursively derives better
and better upper and lower bounds in terms of the previous ones.
All of the bounds the program works with are step functions, which
allow for exact calculations, up to the precision of the machine arithmetic.
For efficiency reasons, the program frequently approximates these
step functions with more conservative ones, so as to avoid an
exponential growth in the number of distinct function values it has to
keep track of.

Note that the upper bound is very close to all the values we know
exactly from our lemmas, suggesting that the lower bound remains
too conservative.

Also note that the ``bump'' visible in the graph at $x \approx 0.41$
is not an artifact.  For comparison, $7/18 = 0.388\overline{8}$.
We have no good explanation for this feature of the graph, but it
seems to suggest that optimal betting has some interesting
structure which remains to be understood.

\section*{Acknowledgments}

I would like to thank Yuval Peres and Evangelos Georgiadis for
introducing me to this problem and for helpful comments.

Probability (math.PR); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)


Schur-Weyl duality over finite fields

Abstract: We prove a version of Schur--Weyl duality over finite fields. We prove that for any field $k$, if $k$ has at least $r+1$ elements, then Schur--Weyl duality holds for the $r$th tensor power of a finite dimensional vector space $V$. Moreover, if the dimension of $V$ is at least $r+1$, the natural map $k\Sym_r \to End\_{GL(V)}(V^{\otimes r})$ is an isomorphism. This isomorphism may fail if $\dim_k V$ is not strictly larger than $r$.

\section{Introduction}\noindent
Let $k$ be a field and let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional vector space over
$k$. We identify $G=GL(V)$ with $GL(n,k)$ and $V$ with $k^n$ as usual,
by fixing a basis $\{v_1, \dots, v_n\}$ of $V$.  $G$ acts on $V$ in
the natural way, and thus on the tensor product space $V^{\otimes
  r}$. Moreover, $V^{\otimes r}$ admits an action of the symmetric
group $\Sym_r$ permuting the tensor multiplicands. For $\sigma\in
\Sym_r$, the action is given by ``place permutation''
\[ \sigma(x_1\otimes\dots\otimes x_r) = x_{\sigma^{-1}(1)} \otimes
\dots \otimes x_{\sigma^{-1}(r)}, \] extended linearly to
$k\Sym_r$. One observes that the actions of $G$ and $\Sym_r$ commute,
so there are natural algebra homomorphisms
\begin{equation} \label{eq:maps}
\rho\colon k\Sym_r \to \mathsf{End}_G(V^{\otimes r}); \qquad
\varphi\colon kG \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V^{\otimes r}).
\end{equation}
In case $k =\mathbb{C}$, Schur \cite{Schur:1927a} proved that both maps are
surjective, so the image of each map is the full centralizer algebra
for the other action. In particular, the ring of invariants
\[ \mathsf{End}_G(V^{\otimes r}) \cong (V^{\otimes r} \otimes (V^*)^{\otimes r})^G \]
is generated by the action of the symmetric group.

Assume that $k$ is infinite. In that case, Theorem 4.1 of De Concini
and Procesi \cite{deConcini/Procesi:1976a} shows the surjectivity of
$\rho$; in fact, their result is even more general. In the special
case $n \ge r$, the surjectivity of $\rho$ was treated earlier in
Lemma 3.1 of \cite{Carter/Lusztig:1974a}, where it is in fact an
isomorphism. The surjectivity of $\varphi$ for $k$ infinite follows
immediately from (2.4b) and (2.6c) of J.~A.~Green's monograph
\cite{Green:2007a}.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the question of the
surjectivity of the maps $\rho, \varphi$ in \eqref{eq:maps} in case
$k$ is a finite field. Our main results are obtained in Theorem
\ref{th:main1} and Corollary \ref{cor:main2}. Theorem \ref{th:main1}
states that $\rho$ is an isomorphism provided that $\dim_k V > r$, a
result that holds independently of the field $k$. This generalizes a
result of Carter and Lusztig. To obtain Corollary \ref{cor:main2},
which extends Schur--Weyl duality to the case where $k$ has at least
$r+1$ elements, we need only the surjectivity of $\rho$, $\varphi$ in
case $k$ is algebraically closed. Our approach also gives information
about a version of Schur--Weyl duality in which $GL(V)$ is replaced
with $SL(V)$. We note that Thrall \cite{Thrall} also obtained the
surjectivity of $\rho$ in case $k$ is sufficiently large, although the
stated bound on the cardinality of the field is incorrect. The methods
of this paper are different than those of \cite{Thrall}.

Several remarks are in order. First, in this paper we regard $G =
GL(n,k)$ as a linear group and not as a group scheme.  To distinguish
these objects notationally, we denote by $\mathbf{GL}_{n,k}$ the
algebraic $k$-group scheme $A \mapsto GL(n,A)$ regarded as a
representable functor from commutative $k$-algebras to groups.  If the
ground field $k$ is understood we may write $\mathbf{GL}_n$ instead of
$\mathbf{GL}_{n,k}$. When $k$ is infinite the distinction between
$GL(n,k)$ and $\mathbf{GL}_{n,k}$ makes little difference, since the
algebraic group $GL(n, \overline{k})$ may be identified with the
algebraic $\overline{k}$-group scheme $\mathbf{GL}_{n,\overline{k}}$,
and the group $GL(n, k)$ of $k$-rational points in $GL(n,
\overline{k})$ may be identified with the algebraic $k$-group scheme
$\mathbf{GL}_{n,k}$.  However, in case $k$ is finite the algebraic
$k$-group scheme $\mathbf{GL}_{n,k}$ is a completely different object
from the finite group $G = GL(n,k) = \mathbf{GL}_{n,k}(k)$.

Our second remark is that in the case when $k$ is infinite a sensible
way to study the $kG$-module $V^{\otimes r}$ is to replace the
complicated infinite dimensional group algebra $kG$ by its finite
dimensional image $\rho(kG)$. Obviously one does not lose information
about the module structure by doing this. The algebra $\rho(kG)
= \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V^{\otimes r})$ is isomorphic to the Schur algebra
$S_k(n,r)$ defined in \cite{Green:2007a}; its module category (when
$k$ is infinite) is equivalent to the category of homogeneous
polynomial $kG$-modules of degree $r$.

Our last remark is on the relevance of polynomial functor technology,
which in the case of infinite fields yields strong results by the
methods of Friedlander and Suslin \cite{FS} and Franjou, Friedlander,
Scorichenko and Suslin \cite{FFSS}. Referring to Section 2 of
\cite{FFSS} and Section 1 of \cite{FS}, the problem for finite fields
is that polynomial functors and strict polynomial functors are
different. Indeed, strict polynomial functors of a given degree always
have finite projective resolutions, while polynomial functors
sometimes do not. The methods of \cite{FFSS,FS} produce results for
strict polynomial functors, which gives strong information for
infinite fields. But for example if we look at Corollary 3.13 of
\cite{FS} we might be tempted to suppose that our Theorem
\ref{th:main1} can be extended to the case $n=r$, which it cannot; see
the discussion preceding the theorem.

\section{Generalization of the Carter--Lusztig result}\noindent
If $k$ is an infinite field, the map $\rho$ described in the first
paragraph of the introduction is surjective by the theorem of De
Concini and Procesi. However, over a finite field this may no longer
be true. For example, if $k=\mathbb{F}_2$ and $n=r=2$ then
$G=GL(2,2)\cong\Sym_3$, $V$ is a projective irreducible
$\mathbb{F}_2G$-module, and $V^{\otimes 2}$ decomposes as a direct sum of $V$
and a two dimensional module with a one dimensional fixed space; the
latter is isomorphic to the projective cover of the trivial module. It
follows that $\mathsf{End}_G(V^{\otimes 2})$ is three dimensional while
$k\Sym_2$ is two dimensional, so $\rho$ cannot be surjective, although
it is injective. The situation is worse for $n<r$: we let the reader
check that if $k=\mathbb{F}_2$, $n=2$ and $r=3$ then $\rho$ is neither
injective nor surjective.

In Lemma 3.1 of \cite{Carter/Lusztig:1974a} it is proved that for
any infinite field $k$ the map $\rho$ is an isomorphism, provided that
$n \ge r$.  However, a slightly weaker statement remains true over
finite fields. We prove the following, which does not depend on
whether $k$ is finite or infinite.

\begin{theorem}\label{th:main1}
Let $k$ be an arbitrary field.  If $n \ge r$ then $\rho\colon k\Sym_r
\to \mathsf{End}_G(V^{\otimes r})$ is injective. If $n\ge r+1$ then $\rho$ is
an isomorphism.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $v_1,\dots,v_n$ be a $k$-basis for $V$.  The injectivity for $n
\ge r$ follows from the fact that the images under $\Sym_r$ of
$v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_r$ are linearly independent.

It remains to show that $\rho$ is surjective when $n\ge r+1$, so we
assume we are in this case. Let $\phi\in\mathsf{End}_G(V^{\otimes r})$.  There
exist uniquely determined scalars $\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}$ ($1\le
i_j\le r$) such that
\[ \phi(v_1 \otimes \dots \otimes v_r) = \sum_{i_1,\dots,i_r}
\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}v_{i_1} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{i_r}. \]
This information determines the value of $\phi$ on any basis
element of the form $v_{j_1} \otimes \dots\otimes v_{j_r}$ where there
are no repetitions among $j_1,\dots, j_r$.

We claim that $\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}=0$ unless $i_1,\dots,i_r$
is a permutation of $1,\dots,r$. First suppose some $i_j$ is
strictly greater than $r$.
Consider the element $g\in G$ defined by $g(v_i)=v_i$ if
$i \ne i_j$ and $g(v_{i_j})=v_{i_j} + v_1$. Then $g$ fixes
$v_1\otimes\dots \otimes v_r$.
Since $\phi$ commutes with the action of $g$,
it follows that $g$ fixes $\phi(v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_r)$.
So  we have
\[ \lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_{j-1},1,i_{j+1},\dots,i_r} =
\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_{j-1},1,i_{j+1},\dots,i_r} +
\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_{j-1},i_j,i_{j+1},\dots,i_r}. \] Notice that in
the left hand side of the above equation, as well as in the first term
on the right hand side, not only is $i_j$ replaced by $1$, but also so
is every $i_k$ which happens to satisfy $i_k=i_j$.  It follows from
this equation that $\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_{j-1},i_j,i_{j+1},\dots,i_r}
=0$.

Next, we suppose that all the indices $i_j$ satisfy $1\le i_j \le r$,
and we show that if two of the indices are equal then
$\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}=0$. By assumption, we have
$\{i_1,\dots,i_r\} \subseteq \{1,\dots,r\}$. So if two of the indices
are equal then we may choose $j$ such that $1\le j\le r$ and
$j\not\in\{i_1,\dots,i_r\}$.  Consider the element $g\in G$ defined by
$g(v_i)=v_i$ if $i\ne j$, and $g(v_j)=v_j - v_{r+1}$. This makes sense
because $n\ge r+1$.  Then
\[ g(v_1\otimes\dots\otimes v_r) = v_1\otimes\dots\otimes v_r
- v_1 \otimes\dots\otimes v_{j-1}\otimes v_{r+1} \otimes
v_{j+1} \otimes\dots \otimes v_r. \]
The coefficient of $v_{i_1} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{i_r}$ in
$g(\phi(v_1\otimes\dots\otimes v_r))$ is $\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}$
whereas the coefficient in
$\phi(g(v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_r))$ is
$\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r} - \lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r} = 0$.
Since these are supposed to be equal,
it follows that $\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}=0$.

Next, we show that the value of $\phi$ on $v_1\otimes \dots\otimes v_r$
determines the value on $v_{j_1} \otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_r}$,
where we allow repetitions among $j_1,\dots,j_r$. We do this
by induction on $m=r-|\{j_1,\dots,j_r\}|$, the case $m=0$ being clear.
Permuting the indices if necessary,
without loss of generality we may suppose that $j_{r-1}=j_r$.
Choose $\ell$ such that $1\le \ell \le n$ and
$\ell\not\in\{j_1,\dots,j_r\}$.
Consider the element $g\in G$ defined by $g(v_i)=v_i$ if $i\ne \ell$
and $g(v_\ell)=v_\ell + v_{j_r}$. Then
\[ g(v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_{r-1}} \otimes v_\ell)
=  v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_{r-1}} \otimes v_\ell +
v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_{r-1}} \otimes v_{j_r}. \]
Hence
\[ \phi(v_1\otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_r}) =
g(\phi(v_1 \otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_{r-1}} \otimes v_\ell))
- \phi(v_1 \otimes \dots \otimes v_{j_{r-1}} \otimes v_\ell) \]
which is determined by the inductive hypothesis.

The conclusion of this argument is that the map $\phi$ is determined
by the constants $\lambda_{i_1,\dots,i_r}$ with $i_1,\dots,i_r$
a permutation of $1,\dots,r$. Since every such set of constants is
the effect of some element of $k\Sym_r$, $\rho$
is surjective.
\end{proof}

\section{Schur--Weyl duality for Schur algebras}\label{sec:2}\noindent
In this expository section we summarize the known results concerning
Schur--Weyl duality between the Schur algebra and symmetric group.
Let us briefly recall the definition of the Schur algebra $S_k(n,r)$,
which makes sense for any commutative ring $k$.  First, consider the
polynomial algebra $k[x_{ij}]$ in $n^2$ commuting variables $x_{ij}$,
$1 \le i,j \le n$. This is naturally graded by regarding each
generator as having degree 1; denote by $A_k(n,r)$ the $r$th graded
component. Thus $k[x_{ij}] = \bigoplus_{r \ge 0}\, A_k(n,r)$. Now,
$k[x_{ij}]$ has a natural coalgebra structure with comultiplication
$\Delta$ the algebra homomorphism given on generators by $x_{ij} \to
\sum_{l=1}^n x_{il} \otimes x_{lj}$, and counit given by $x_{ij} \to
\delta_{ij}$ (Kronecker's delta). Since comultiplication is an algebra
homomorphism, $k[x_{ij}]$ is a bialgebra. One easily checks that
$A_k(n,r)$ is a subcoalgebra of $k[x_{ij}]$, for every $r \ge 0$.
\begin{defn}
  The Schur algebra is the algebra $S_k(n,r) := A_k(n,r)^*$.
\end{defn}
\noindent
Note that it is a well known general fact that the linear dual $C^* =
\mathsf{Hom}_k(C,k)$ of any $k$-coalgebra $C$ is an algebra in a natural
way. The multiplication on $C^*$ comes from the comultiplication on
$C$, by the rule $ff' = (f \overline{\otimes} f')\Delta$, for all
$f,f' \in C^*$. (As usual, $f \overline{\otimes} f'$ stands for the map
$a \otimes a' \mapsto f(a) f'(a')$.)

Now let $I(n,r)$ denote the set $\{1,\dots,n\}^r$ of $r$-tuples of
elements of $\{1,\dots,n\}$. For $\mathbf{i} = (i_1, \dots, i_r)$, $\mathbf{j} = (j_1,
\dots, j_r)$ in $I(n,r)$ define
\[ x_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}} :=  x_{i_1,\,j_1} \cdots x_{i_{r-1},\,j_{r-1}}\, x_{i_r,\,j_r}. \]
The symmetric group $\Sym_r$ acts naturally by place-permutation on
$I(n,r)$, and thus acts on $I(n,r) \times I(n,r)$, and $x_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}}
= x_{\mathbf{i}',\,\mathbf{j}'}$ if and only if $(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})$ and $(\mathbf{i}',\mathbf{j}')$ lie in
the same orbit. Thus if $\Omega$ is a set of representatives for the
orbits then $\{ x_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}} \colon (\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}) \in \Omega \}$ is a basis of
$A_k(n,r)$.  Write $(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}) \sim (\mathbf{i}',\mathbf{j}')$ if $(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j})$ and
$(\mathbf{i}',\mathbf{j}')$ lie in the same orbit.  For $\mathbf{i}, \mathbf{j} \in I(n,r)$ define
$\xi_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}} \in S_k(n,r)$ by
\[ \xi_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}}(x_{\mathbf{i}',\,\mathbf{j}'}) =
\begin{cases}
  1 & \text{ if } (\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}) \sim (\mathbf{i}',\mathbf{j}') \\
  0 & \text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
Then of course $\xi_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}} = \xi_{\mathbf{i}',\,\mathbf{j}'}$ if and only if
$(\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}) \sim (\mathbf{i}',\mathbf{j}')$, and $\{ \xi_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}} \colon (\mathbf{i},\mathbf{j}) \in
\Omega \}$ is a basis of $S_k(n,r)$. Now we define an action of
$S_k(n,r)$ on $V^{\otimes r}$ by the rule
\[ \xi \cdot v_\mathbf{j} = \sum_{\mathbf{i} \in I(n,r)} \xi(x_{\mathbf{i},\,\mathbf{j}})\, v_\mathbf{i} \]
for any $\xi \in S_k(n,r)$, where $v_\mathbf{i} := v_{i_1}\otimes \cdots
\otimes v_{i_r}$ for any $\mathbf{i} \in I(n,r)$.  It is
straightforward to check that this action commutes with the action of
$\Sym_r$. Then an elementary direct computation \cite[Theorem
  (2.6c)]{Green:2007a} shows that
\begin{equation}\label{Schuriso}
  S_k(n,r) \cong \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V^{\otimes r}).
\end{equation}
The argument given there is valid for any commutative ring $k$.

Since the actions of $S_k(n,r)$ and $\Sym_r$ on $V^{\otimes r}$
commute, one has also a natural algebra homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{Bryantrk}
  k\Sym_r \to \mathsf{End}_{S_k(n,r)}(V^{\otimes r}).
\end{equation}
Assume now that $k$ is a field. If $k$ is infinite then of course the
map \eqref{Bryantrk} is surjective, because $\varphi(kG) \cong
S_k(n,r)$ and the action of $kG$ induces the action of $S_k(n,r)$, so
$\mathsf{End}_{S_k(n,r)}(V^{\otimes r}) = \mathsf{End}_{G}(V^{\otimes r})$ and thus the map
in \eqref{Bryantrk} may be identified with the map $\rho$.  But the
surjectivity statement also holds in case $k$ is finite, even though
the isomorphism $\varphi(kG) \cong S_k(n,r)$ may fail. This has been
shown by an elementary argument of Bryant \cite[Lemma
  2.4]{Bryant:inf}. So the map \eqref{Bryantrk} is surjective for any
field $k$, finite or infinite. This is needed in the proof of Theorem
\ref{Thrall}. We note that in Bryant's argument it is enough to
assume the surjectivity of $\rho$ in case $k$ is algebraically closed.

\section{Large enough finite fields}\noindent
In this section we prove Schur--Weyl duality over finite fields which
are sufficiently large, assuming the result is known in case the field
is algebraically closed. The central issue is whether or not the
Schur algebra $S_k(n,r)$ is isomorphic to the subalgebra of
$\mathsf{End}_k(V^{\otimes r})$ generated by the image of the
$G=GL(V)$-action. This holds when $k$ is infinite, but in fact we will
show it holds whenever $k$ has strictly more than $r$ elements, as an
application of the Chevalley group construction. Our argument is a
refinement of an argument given in Section 3.1 of
\cite{Carter/Lusztig:1974a}.

We will need to pay close attention to change of scalars in this
section; in particular, we are going to write $V_k$ instead of $V$ in
order to emphasize the field of scalars.

Consider the complex Lie group $GL(n,\mathbb{C})$ and its Lie algebra
$\mathfrak{g}:= \mathfrak{gl}_n(\mathbb{C})$.  Let $U = U_\mathbb{C}(\mathfrak{g})$ be
the universal enveloping algebra (over $\mathbb{C}$) of $\mathfrak{g}$. One
may regard $U$ as the associative $\mathbb{C}$-algebra given by generators
$e_{ij}$, $1 \le i,j \le n$ with the relations
\[
  e_{ij} e_{ab} - e_{ab} e_{ij} = \delta_{aj}e_{ib} - \delta_{ib} e_{aj}
\]
for all $1 \le i,j,a,b \le n$. (The $e_{ij}$ correspond to the matrix
units in the Lie algebra.) Let $U'$ be the subalgebra of $U$ generated
by the $e_{ij}$ for $i \ne j$. Then $U'$ may be identified with the
universal enveloping algebra of $\mathfrak{sl}_n(\mathbb{C})$.

Let $V$ be an $n$-dimensional complex vector space, with basis $\{v_1,
\dots, v_n\}$. Define an action of $\mathfrak{g}$ on $V$ by $e_{ij}
v_a = \delta_{aj} v_i$. Identifying $V$ with $\mathbb{C}^n$ by means of the
basis, one sees that the action is just by matrix multiplication. Thus
$V^{\otimes r}$ is for any $r \ge 0$ a $\mathfrak{g}$-module and hence
a $U$-module.  We regard $V^{\otimes r}$ as a $U'$-module by
restriction.  Let $U'_\mathbb{Z}$ be the subring of $U$ generated by all
divided powers
\[
\frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!}\quad (1\le i \ne j \le n,\ m\ge 0)
\]
and let $U_\mathbb{Z}$ be the subring generated by $U'_\mathbb{Z}$ and all elements of
the form
\[
\binom{e_{ii}}{m} := \frac{e_{ii}(e_{ii}-1) \cdots (e_{ii}-m+1)}{m!}
\quad (1\le i \le n,\ m \ge 0).
\]
Then $U_\mathbb{Z}$ (resp., $U'_\mathbb{Z}$) is the Kostant $\mathbb{Z}$-form of $U$ (resp.,
$U'$). Let $V_\mathbb{Z} = \sum \mathbb{Z} v_i$ and note that $V_\mathbb{Z}$ is stable under
the action of $U_\mathbb{Z}$. It follows that we have for any $r\ge 0$ a
$U_\mathbb{Z}$-module structure on $V_\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes r}$, and hence also a
$U'_\mathbb{Z}$-module structure.  Thus for any commutative ring $k$ we have a
$k\otimes_\mathbb{Z} U_\mathbb{Z}$-module structure on $k\otimes_\mathbb{Z} V_\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes
  r}$. Set $U_k = k \otimes_\mathbb{Z} U_\mathbb{Z}$, $U'_k = k \otimes_\mathbb{Z} U'_\mathbb{Z}$.
Then $U_k$ (resp., $U'_k$) is the algebra of distributions on the
algebraic group scheme $\mathbf{GL}_{n,k}$ (resp.,
$\mathbf{SL}_{n,k}$). We identify $k\otimes_\mathbb{Z} V_\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes r}$ with
$V_k^{\otimes r}$ as usual, where $V_k := k \otimes_\mathbb{Z} V_\mathbb{Z}$. Note
that $U_\mathbb{C} \cong U$, $U'_\mathbb{C} \cong U'$ as algebras, and $V_\mathbb{C} \cong V$
as vector spaces. Moreover, the $U$-module structure on $V$ is
isomorphic with the $U_\mathbb{C}$-module structure on $V_\mathbb{C}$, so that when
$k=\mathbb{C}$ these constructions recover the original objects.

So we have a $U_k$-module structure on $V_k^{\otimes r}$. It is easy
to check that on $V_k^{\otimes r}$ the action of $U_k$ commutes with
the place-permutation action of the symmetric group $\Sym_r$. Thus we
have algebra homomorphisms
\begin{equation}
\psi\colon U_k \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_k^{\otimes r});\qquad
\psi'\colon U_k \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_k^{\otimes r})
\end{equation}
where the second map is just the restriction of the first.  For our
purposes, the following simple observation is key.

\begin{lemma}
For any $m > r$ the elements
\[
\frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!},\ \binom{e_{ii}}{m}\ \in U \qquad (1 \le i\ne
j \le n,\ m \ge 0)
\]
act as zero on $V^{\otimes r}$; hence for any $m > r$ the elements
\[
1 \otimes \frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!},\ 1 \otimes \binom{e_{ii}}{m}\ \in
U_k \qquad (1 \le i\ne j \le n,\ m \ge 0)
\]
act as zero on $V_k^{\otimes r}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The weight of a simple tensor $v_\mathbf{j}$ (for $\mathbf{j} = (j_1, \dots, j_r)
\in I(n,r)$) is the composition $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \dots,
\lambda_n)$ where $\lambda_i$ counts the number of $a \in [1,r]$ such
that $j_a = i$, for each $i$.  The weight $\lambda$ is an $n$-part
composition of $r$ (i.e., $\lambda_1 + \cdots + \lambda_n = r$).  One
checks that $e_{ij}$ for $i \ne j$ sends a simple tensor of weight
$\lambda$ onto
\[
\begin{cases}
\text{a simple tensor of weight } \lambda+\varepsilon_i-\varepsilon_j &
\text{if } \lambda_j \ge 1 \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
Here $\{ \varepsilon_1, \dots, \varepsilon_n \}$ is the standard basis
of $\mathbb{Z}^n$.  Now by induction on $m$ it follows that
$\frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!}$ takes a simple tensor of weight $\lambda$ onto
\[
\begin{cases}
\text{a simple tensor of weight } \lambda+m\varepsilon_i-m\varepsilon_j &
\text{if } \lambda_j \ge m \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\]
When $m > r$, no composition $\lambda$ of $r$ satisfies $\lambda_j \ge
m$, no matter what $j$ we look at. Hence $\frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!}$ acts as
zero on all simple tensors in $V^{\otimes r}$. This proves the claim
for $i \ne j$.

It remains to show the $\binom{e_{ii}}{m}$ also act as zero. For this
note that $e_{ii}$ acts as the scalar $\delta_{i,\,j_1} + \cdots +
\delta_{i,\,j_r}$ on the simple tensor $v_\mathbf{j} = v_{j_1} \otimes \cdots
\otimes v_{j_r}$. This scalar is an integer in the interval $[0,r]$,
so for any $m>r$ the element $\binom{e_{ii}}{m}$ acts as zero.
\end{proof}

Assume from now on that $k$ is a field. For any $t \in k$, $1 \le i,j
\le n$ we define elements $E_{ij}(t) \in \mathsf{End}(V_k)$ by the rule
\[
  E_{ij}(t) = 1 + t \psi(1\otimes e_{ij}).
\]
Then from the lemma it follows that for $i \ne j$, $E_{ij}(s)
E_{ij}(t) = E_{ij}(s+t)$ for all $s,t \in k$. Thus $E_{ij}(t)$ is for
$i \ne j$ invertible, i.e., $E_{ij}(t) \in GL(V_k)$. One easily checks
that $E_{ii}(t) \in GL(V_k)$ provided that $t \ne -1$. Now it is clear
that $GL(V_k)$ is generated by the elements $E_{ij}(t)$ ($1 \le i \ne
j \le n$, $t \in k$) along with the elements $E_{ii}(t)$ ($1 \le i \le
n$, $-1 \ne t \in k$). Moreover, $SL(V_k)$ is generated by the
$E_{ij}(t)$ ($1 \le i \ne j \le n$, $t \in k$). Of course, $GL(V_k)$
acts naturally on $V_k$, so $GL(V_k)$ acts on $V_k^{\otimes r}$; this
is the action already considered in the introduction. By restriction,
we also have an action of $SL(V_k)$ on $V_k^{\otimes r}$. As already
noted, these actions commute with the place-permutation action of
$\Sym_r$, so we have algebra homomorphisms
\begin{equation}
\varphi\colon kGL(V_k) \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_k^{\otimes r}); \qquad
\varphi'\colon kSL(V_k) \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_k^{\otimes r}).
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}
Let $k$ be a field.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] If the order of $k$ is strictly larger
than $r+1$, then $\varphi$ is surjective if and only if $\psi$ is
surjective.

\item[(ii)] If the order of $k$ is strictly larger
than $r$, then $\varphi'$ is surjective if and only if $\psi'$ is
surjective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
First, we claim that as operators on $V_k^{\otimes r}$ the maps $\psi$
and $\varphi$ are related by the following, for $t \in k$ and $i \ne
j$:
\begin{equation}\label{a}
  \varphi(E_{ij}(t)) = \sum_{m=0}^r t^m \psi(1\otimes
  \frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!}).
\end{equation}
This may be checked directly; see formula (25) of
\cite{Carter/Lusztig:1974a}.

Choose $r+1$ distinct values $t_0, t_1, \dots, t_r$ for $t$ in
$k$. (This is possible because $k$ has more than $r$ elements, by
hypothesis.) This results in a system of equations
\begin{align*}
\varphi(E_{ij}(t_0)) &= 1 + t_0\psi(1\otimes e_{ij}) + t_0^2
\psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^2}{2!}) + \cdots + t_0^r
\psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^r}{r!})\\
\varphi(E_{ij}(t_1)) &= 1 + t_1\psi(1\otimes e_{ij}) + t_1^2
\psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^2}{2!}) + \cdots + t_1^r
\psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^r}{r!})\\
\vdots \hspace{0.3in} & \hspace{1.2in} \vdots  \hspace{1.6in} \vdots\\
\varphi(E_{ij}(t_r)) &= 1 + t_r\psi(1\otimes e_{ij}) + t_r^2
\psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^2}{2!}) + \cdots + t_r^r
\psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^r}{r!})
\end{align*}
whose coefficient matrix is a Vandermonde matrix with nonzero
determinant, hence invertible. Thus there exist scalars $a_{ml}$
($0 \le m,l \le r$) in $k$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{psimap}
  \psi(1\otimes \frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!}) = \sum_{l=0}^r a_{ml}
  \varphi(E_{ij}(t_l))
\end{equation}
for each $m$.  Thus the generators $\psi(1\otimes
\frac{e_{ij}^m}{m!})$ of the image of $\psi'$ all lie in the image of
$\varphi$ on $SL(V_k)$, proving that $\operatorname{im} \varphi' \subseteq \operatorname{im}
\psi'$. The reverse containment is clear from \eqref{a}, so we have
proved part (ii).

It remains to consider part (i). For this we must consider in addition
the operators $E_{ii}(t)$. We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{b}
\varphi( E_{ii}(t) ) = \sum_{m=0}^r t^m \psi(1 \otimes \binom{e_{ii}}{m})
\end{equation}
for any $-1 \ne t \in k$, and any $i$. Again this may be checked
directly, as in (25) of \cite{Carter/Lusztig:1974a}. We can now repeat
the above argument, and conclude that so long as $k$ contains at least
$r+1$ elements different from $-1$, the generators $\psi(1\otimes
\binom{e_{ii}}{m})$ of the image of $\psi$ all lie in the image of
$\varphi$ on $GL(V_k)$, so we have $\operatorname{im} \psi \subseteq \operatorname{im} \varphi$.
The opposite inclusion is clear from \eqref{a} and \eqref{b}, so part
(i) is proved.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{Thrall}
If the order of the field $k$ is strictly larger than $r$, then both
$\varphi$ and $\varphi'$ are surjective.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
For $k = \overline{k}$ algebraically closed the statement is known. In
that case, the surjectivity of $\varphi'$ follows from the
surjectivity of $\varphi$, since (for $k$ algebraically closed)
$GL(V_k)$ is generated by $SL(V_k)$ and the scalar operators $c\,
\mathrm{id}_{V_k}$ ($0 \ne c \in k$).  As pointed out by Carter and
Lusztig \cite[p.~209]{Carter/Lusztig:1974a} this implies that the
natural maps
\begin{equation} \label{psiZ}
  \psi_\mathbb{Z}\colon U_\mathbb{Z} \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes r}); \qquad
  \psi'_\mathbb{Z}\colon U'_\mathbb{Z} \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes r})
\end{equation}
are both surjective. The argument is as follows. First, apply the
preceding lemma to conclude that $\psi$, $\psi'$ are surjective. Then
apply the fact that if $f\colon A \to A'$ is a homomorphism between two
free $\mathbb{Z}$-modules of finite rank, then $f$ is surjective if and only if
$1 \otimes f\colon k \otimes_\mathbb{Z} A \to k \otimes_\mathbb{Z} A'$ is surjective for
every algebraically closed field $k$.

Then we obtain the surjectivity of $\psi = 1 \otimes \psi_\mathbb{Z}$, $\psi'
= 1 \otimes \psi'_\mathbb{Z}$ by right exactness of tensor product. Thus it
follows that $\psi, \psi'$ are surjective for any field $k$. (In fact,
this holds for any commutative ring.)  Now we again apply the
preceding lemma to conclude that $\varphi'$ is surjective provided
$|k| > r$. Since $\varphi'$ is the restriction of $\varphi$ this
implies the surjectivity of $\varphi$ as well.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{cor:main2}
If the field $k$ has strictly more than $r$ elements, then the natural
maps $\varphi\colon kGL(V_k) \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_k^{\otimes r})$,
$\rho\colon k\Sym_r \to \mathsf{End}_{GL(V_k)}(V_k^{\otimes r})$ are
surjective.  The same statement holds if $GL(V_k)$ is replaced by
$SL(V_k)$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
The surjectivity of $\varphi$ is the statement of the preceding
theorem.  It follows (setting $G = GL(V_k)$) that
$\mathsf{End}_{G}(V_k^{\otimes r}) = \mathsf{End}_{\varphi(kG)}(V_k^{\otimes
  r})= \mathsf{End}_{S_k(n,r)}(V_k^{\otimes r}) = \rho(k\Sym_r)$, where the
last equality is by the surjectivity statement of
\eqref{Bryantrk}. This proves the surjectivity of $\rho$, so the first
claim is proved. The proof of the second claim is similar.
\end{proof}

We note the following improvement of \cite[Theorem
  3.1(i)]{Carter/Lusztig:1974a}.

\begin{cor}
  The natural map $\mathbb{Z} \Sym_r \to \mathsf{End}_{U_\mathbb{Z}}(V_\mathbb{Z}^{\otimes r})$ is
surjective (for any $n,r$). The same statement holds with $U'_\mathbb{Z}$ in
place of $U_\mathbb{Z}$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Let $k = \overline{k}$ be algebraically closed. Then the corresponding
map $k \Sym_r \to \mathsf{End}_{U_k}(V_k^{\otimes r})$ is surjective, by
\eqref{Bryantrk}, since $$\mathsf{End}_{U_k}(V_k^{\otimes r})
= \mathsf{End}_{\psi(U_k)}(V_k^{\otimes r}) \cong
\mathsf{End}_{S_k(n,r)}(V_k^{\otimes r}).$$  This implies the claim about $U_\mathbb{Z}$.
The argument with $U'_\mathbb{Z}$ in place of $U_\mathbb{Z}$ is similar, since
we now know that $\psi(U_k) = \psi(U'_k)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{rks}
(a) From the preceding result and the first surjectivity statement in
  \eqref{psiZ} it follows by the right exactness of tensor product
  that the natural maps
\[
  U_k \to \mathsf{End}_{\Sym_r}(V_k^{\otimes r}); \quad
  k\Sym_r \to \mathsf{End}_{U_k}(V_k^{\otimes r})
\]
are surjective, for any commutative ring $k$. Similarly one sees
immediately that this holds with $U'_k$ in place of $U_k$.

(b) Our proof of Theorem \ref{Thrall} is valid assuming only the
surjectivity of the maps $\rho$, $\varphi$ is known in case $k$ is
algebraically closed. That surjectivity is known by
\cite{deConcini/Procesi:1976a} and \cite{Green:2007a}.

(c) If $k=\mathbb{F}_2$ and $V_k$ has dimension 2, the dimension of $kGL(V_k)$
is 6 while the dimension of $\mathsf{End}_{\Sym_2}(V_k \otimes V_k)$ is
10. This shows that the bound $|k| > r$ in Theorem \ref{Thrall} cannot
be improved. It also shows that the bound in Theorem III of
\cite{Thrall} is incorrect. Note that, apart from the bound, the first
assertion in Theorem \ref{Thrall} is the same as Theorem III of
\cite{Thrall}.
\end{rks}

\section{An example}\noindent
In this section, we take $k = \mathbb{F}_q$ with $q = p^e$, and once again
write $V$ for the $n$-dimensional space $V_k$.  We will show that some
restriction on $q$ with respect to $r$ is necessary in order for
Schur--Weyl duality to hold.

\begin{theorem}
In case $n= \dim_k V = 2$ and $q=p$ is a prime, for $r$ sufficiently
large the map $\rho\colon k\Sym_r\to\mathsf{End}_{GL(V)}(V^{\otimes r})$ is not
surjective.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we note that $GL(V)=GL(2,p)$ is a finite group
whose Sylow $p$-subgroups are cyclic. It follows that there are a finite
number of isomorphism classes of indecomposable $\mathbb{F}_pGL(V)$-modules.
Let $d$ be the sum of the dimensions of the indecomposable
$\mathbb{F}_pGL(V)$-modules, one from each isomorphism class. Then by a
version of the pigeon hole principle, for all finite dimensional
$\mathbb{F}_pGL(V)$-modules $M$ there is a summand consisting of at least
$(\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}M/d) -1$ copies of a single indecomposable. Thus
$\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}\mathsf{End}_{GL(V)}(M) \ge ((\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}M/d)-1)^2$. Applying
this with $M=V^{\otimes r}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimEnd}
\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}\mathsf{End}_{GL(V)}(V^{\otimes r}) \ge \left(\frac{2^r}{d} - 1\right)^2.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the image of $\mathbb{F}_p\Sym_r$ in
$\mathsf{End}_{GL(V)}(V^{\otimes r})$ is the Temper\-ley--Lieb algebra $T_r$, whose
dimension is the Catalan number $\binom{2r}{r}/(r+1)$. Using Stirling's
formula, asymptotically  we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dimTr}
\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p} T_r \sim \frac{2^{2r}}{\sqrt{\pi}\,r^{3/2}}.
\end{equation}
Comparing \eqref{eq:dimEnd} with \eqref{eq:dimTr}, we see that for
$r$ large we have
\begin{equation*}
\dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}\mathsf{End}_{GL(V)}(V^{\otimes r}) > \dim_{\mathbb{F}_p}T_r.
\qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Group Theory (math.GR); Representation Theory (math.RT)

Schur-Weyl duality over finite fields