Sensitivity to switching rates in stochastically switched ODEs

Abstract: We consider a stochastic process driven by a linear ordinary differential equation whose right-hand side switches at exponential times between a collection of different matrices. We construct planar examples that switch between two matrices where the individual matrices and the average of the two matrices are all Hurwitz (all eigenvalues have strictly negative real part), but nonetheless the process goes to infinity at large time for certain values of the switching rate. We further construct examples in higher dimensions where again the two individual matrices and their averages are all Hurwitz, but the process has arbitrarily many transitions between going to zero and going to infinity at large time as the switching rate varies. In order to construct these examples, we first prove in general that if each of the individual matrices is Hurwitz, then the process goes to zero at large time for sufficiently slow switching rate and if the average matrix is Hurwitz, then the process goes to zero at large time for sufficiently fast switching rate. We also give simple conditions that ensure the process goes to zero at large time for all switching rates.

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}

We consider the stochastic process $(X_{t})_{t\ge0}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$
where $X_{t}$ solves $\dot{X}_{t}=A_{I_{t}}X_{t}$ with $I_{t}$ a
Markov process on a finite set $E$ and $\{A_{i}\}_{i\in E}$ a set of
$d\times d$ real matrices. The stability of this system when the
switching process $I_{t}$ is deterministic has been extensively
studied in the past decade. See \cite{lin09} for a review of the
deterministic case.

In \cite{benaim12planar}, the authors study the stochastic problem in the plane with $I_{t}$ a Markov process and $E=\{0,1\}$. The authors assume both $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ are Hurwitz (all eigenvalues have strictly negative real part) and prove the surprising result that $||X_{t}||$ may converge to 0 or $+\infty$ as $t\to\infty$ depending on the switching rate as long as an average matrix $\bar{A} = \lambda A_{0}+(1-\lambda)A_{1}$ has a positive eigenvalue for some $\lambda\in(0,1)$.

In this paper, we show that the assumption that the average matrix has a positive eigenvalue is not necessary to ensure a blowup. Specifically, we construct examples in the plane where $A_{0}$, $A_{1}$, and $\bar{A} = \lambda A_{0}+(1-\lambda)A_{1}$ are all Hurwitz, but $||X_{t}||\to+\infty$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ for certain values of the switching rate. This is significant for the general study of switching processes because it shows that the dynamics of the switching process can be very different from both the individual dynamics (in this case, the $A_{i}$'s) and the averaged dynamics (in this case, $\bar{A}$). These planar examples are also interesting because they have multiple phase transitions between $||X_{t}||$ going to $0$ and going to $+\infty$ at large time as the switching rate varies. Furthermore, we construct examples in higher dimensions that have arbitrarily many such phase transitions.

Recently researchers have devoted considerable attention to randomly
switched systems and we now comment on our work in this broader
context. \cite{hairer13}, \cite{benaim12quant}, \cite{benaim12qual},
and \cite{bakhtin12} all study invariant measures for such
processes. Our work shows that the existence of such invariant
measures may depend in a complicated way on the switching rates. In
\cite{hasler13finite}, \cite{hasler13asymptotic}, and \cite{belykh13},
the authors provide conditions under which their randomly switched
systems behave according to the individual systems for slow switching
and according to the averaged system for fast switching. We prove that
our system also obeys this principle in Theorems \ref{slow theorem}
and \ref{fast theorem}. However, we show in Example \ref{one
  transition} that the transition between the slow and fast switching
regimes can be quite complicated. Furthermore, Example \ref{many
  transitions} shows that it can be as complicated as we want.

As background for these surprising results, we first prove sufficient
conditions to ensure stability for all switching rates in Section
\ref{basic theorems}. Furthermore we also show in Section \ref{basic
  theorems} that the individual matrices determine the stability for
slow switching and that the average matrix determines the stability
for fast switching. In Section \ref{medium section} we use these
theorems to construct examples that show ``medium'' switching can
induce blowups even when the individual matrices and the average
matrix are all Hurwitz.

We conclude this introduction by defining notation. Let
$E=\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$ and let $\{A_{i}\}_{i\in E}$ be a set of
$d\times d$ real matrices. For a given switching rate $r>0$, let
$(I_{t})_{t\ge0}$ be an irreducible continuous time Markov process
with state space $E$ and generator $rQ$. Under these assumptions, the
Markov process on $E$ with generator $rQ$ has a unique invariant
probability measure which we denote by $\pi$. Furthermore, $\pi$ is
the unique
probability vector satisfying $\pi Q = 0$.

Define $(X_{t})_{t\ge0}$ to be the solution of
\begin{align}\label{integral defn}
X_{t} = X_{0}+\int_{0}^{t}A_{I_{s}}X_{s}\,ds,\quad(t\ge0).
\end{align}
Then $(X_{t},I_{t})_{t\ge0}$ is a Markov process on $\mathbb{R}^{d}\times E$. Unless otherwise noted, assume throughout that the distribution of the initial condition $(X_{0},I_{0})$ is some given probability measure on $\mathbb{R}^{d}\times E$ satisfying $\mathbb{E}||X_{0}||<\infty$. Define the average matrix
\begin{align*}
\bar{A} = \sum_{i\in E}A_{i}\pi_{i}.
\end{align*}

The following description of our process will be useful. Let $\xi_{1},\xi_{2},\dots$ denote the succession of states visited by $I_{t}$, $\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\dots$ the holding times in each state, $N(t)$ the number of switches before $t$, and $a_{t} = t-\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)}\tau_{k}$ the time since the last switch. Observe that we can write $X_{t}$ as
\begin{align}\label{process defn}
X_{t} = \exp(A_{\xi_{N(t)+1}}a_{t})\exp(A_{\xi_{N(t)}}\tau_{N(t)})\dots \exp(A_{\xi_{1}}\tau_{1})X_{0}.
\end{align}

\section{Basic stability theorems}\label{basic theorems}

\begin{theorem}[normal case]\label{normal}
If $A_{i}$ is normal and Hurwitz for each $i\in E$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ monotonically as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  Since each $A_{i}$ is normal and Hurwitz, there exists a $\gamma>0$
  so that for each $A_{i}$ and for every $t>0$,
\begin{align*}
||\exp(A_{i}t)||\le e^{-\gamma t}<1.
\end{align*}
Therefore
\begin{align*}
  ||X_{t}||
  & = ||\exp(A_{\xi_{N(t)+1}}a_{t})\exp(A_{\xi_{N(t)}}\tau_{N(t)})\dots\exp(A_{\xi_{1}}\tau_{1})X_{0}||\\
  & \le ||\exp(A_{\xi_{N(t)+1}}a_{t})||\Big(\prod_{k=1}^{N(t)}||\exp(A_{\xi_{k}}\tau_{k})||\Big)||X_{0}||\\
  & \le e^{-\gamma t}||X_{0}||\to0\quad\text{as }t\to\infty.
\end{align*}
To see that the convergence is monotonic, let $0\le s\le t$ and replace $X_{0}$ by $X_{s}$ in the calculation above.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}[commuting case]
 Assume $\{A_{i}\}_{i\in E}$ is a commuting family of matrices. If $\bar{A}$ is Hurwitz, then $||X_t||\to0$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since $\bar{A}$ is Hurwitz, there exist positive $\beta$ and $\gamma$ so that for each $t\ge0$
\begin{align*}
||\exp(\bar{A}t)||\le\beta e^{-\gamma t}.
\end{align*}
For each $t>0$, define
\begin{align*}
C_{t} = \frac{1}{t}\Big(\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)}A_{\xi_{k}}\tau_k+A_{\xi_{N(t)+1}}a_t\Big)=\sum_{i\in E}A_{i}\frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t}1_{I_{s}=i}\,ds.
\end{align*}
Now since $\{A_{i}\}_{i\in E}$ is a commuting family of matrices, Equation (\ref{process defn}) becomes
\begin{align*}
||X_t||
 = ||\exp\Big(\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)}A_{\xi_{k}}\tau_k+A_{\xi_{N(t)+1}}a_t\Big)X_0|| = ||\exp\left(C_tt\right)X_0||\\
 = ||\exp\left(\bar{A}t\right)\exp\left((C_{t}-\bar{A})t\right)X_0||
 \le \beta e^{-\gamma t}e^{||C_{t}-\bar{A}||t}||X_0||,
\end{align*}
Since $Q$ is irreducible, $C_t\to\bar{A}$ almost surely as
$t\to\infty$ since $\frac1t \int_0^t 1_{I_s=i} ds \rightarrow \pi_i$
almost surely as $t \rightarrow \infty$ (see \cite{norris97}, page 126). Thus, $||X_t||\to0$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
If $\{A_{i}\}_{i\in E}$ is a commuting family of matrices and each $A_{i}$ is Hurwitz, then $\bar{A}$ is Hurwitz. This is an immediate consequence of the fact that eigenvalues ``add'' - in some order - for commuting matrices.
\end{rem}

\begin{theorem}[slow switching]\label{slow theorem}
 Assume $A_{i}$ is Hurwitz for each $i\in E$. Then there exists a constant $a>0$ so that if $r<a$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Since each $A_{i}$ is Hurwitz, there exist $\beta>1$ and $\gamma>0$ so that for each $A_{i}$ and each $t\ge0$
\begin{align*}
||\exp(A_{i}t)||\le\beta e^{-\gamma t}.
\end{align*}
Therefore from Equation (\ref{process defn}), we have that
\begin{align}\label{commuting bound}
\begin{aligned}
||X_{t}||
& \le ||\exp(A_{\xi_{N(t)+1}}a_{t})||\Big(\prod_{k=1}^{N(t)}||\exp(A_{\xi_{k}}\tau_{k})||\Big)||X_{0}||\\
& \le \beta^{N(t)+1}e^{-\gamma t}||X_{0}||= \exp\bigg(\Big(\frac{N(t)+1}{t}\log\beta-\gamma\Big)t\bigg)||X_{0}||.
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
Next we claim that we have the following almost sure convergence as $K\to\infty$
\begin{align}\label{Birkhoff}
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tau_{k}\to\Big(r\sum_{i\in E}\pi_{i}q_{i}\Big)^{-1},
\end{align}
where $q_{i}$ is the $i$th diagonal entry of $Q$. To see this, let
$s_{j}^{i}$ denote the duration of the $j$th visit of the process
$I_{t}$ to state $i\in E$ and let
$V_{i}(K):=\sum_{k=1}^{K}1_{\xi_{k}=i}$ denote the number of visits to
$i$ before the $K$th jump of the process $I_{t}$.  Then
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K}\tau_{k} = \sum_{i\in E}\frac{1}{K}\sum_{j=1}^{V_{i}(K)}s_{j}^{i} = \sum_{i\in E}\frac{V_{i}(K)}{K}\frac{1}{V_{i}(K)}\sum_{j=1}^{V_{i}(K)}s_{j}^{i}.
\end{align*}
For each $i\in E$, $\frac{V_{i}(K)}{K}\to q_{i}\pi_{i}/(\sum_{k\in E}q_{k}\pi_{k})$ almost surely as $K\to\infty$ since $Q$ is irreducible. And by the strong law of large numbers, $\frac{1}{V_{i}(K)}\sum_{j=1}^{V_{i}(K)}s_{j}^{i}\to \frac{1}{rq_{i}}$ almost surely as $K\to\infty$. Therefore, Equation (\ref{Birkhoff}) is verified.

By the definition of $N(t)$ we have that $\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)}\tau_{k}\le t\le\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)+1}\tau_{k}$. Therefore
\begin{align}\label{squeeze}
\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)}\tau_{k}}{N(t)}\le\frac{t}{N(t)}\le\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N(t)+1}\tau_{k}}{N(t)+1}\frac{N(t)+1}{N(t)}.
\end{align}
Since each $\tau_{k}$ is almost surely finite, $N(t)\to\infty$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$. It then follows from combining Equations (\ref{Birkhoff}) and (\ref{squeeze}) that
\begin{align*}
\frac{N(t)}{t}\to r\sum_{i\in E}\pi_{i}q_{i}\quad\text{almost surely as }t\to\infty.
\end{align*}
So if $r<\gamma(2\log\beta\sum_{i\in E}\pi_{i}q_{i})^{-1}$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ by Equation (\ref{commuting bound}).
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}[fast switching]\label{fast theorem}
 Assume $\bar{A}$ is Hurwitz. Then there exists a constant $b>0$ so that if $r>b$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\end{theorem}

The proof relies on the following lemma. Let $\mathbb{E}_{\nu}$ denote the
expectation with respect to the measure of the process
$(I_{t})_{t\ge0}$ with $I_{0}$ distributed according to $\nu$. Since we will consider processes with different switching rates, let us momentarily make the dependence on the switching rate explicit by letting $(I^{(r)}_{t})_{t\ge0}$ be the Markov process on $E$ with generator $rQ$ and define $(X^{(r)}_{t})_{t\ge0}$ with respect to $(I^{(r)}_{t})_{t\ge0}$ as before. Define $S^{(r)}_{t}$ to be the operator that
maps $X_{0}$ to $X^{(r)}_{t}$. Observe that $S^{(r)}_{t}$ is a function of
$(I^{(r)}_{s})_{0\le s\le t}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma Kurtz}
For every probability measure $\nu$ on $E$ and for every $t>0$,
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}_{\nu}||S^{(r)}_{t}||\to ||\exp(\bar{A}t)||\quad\text{as }r\to\infty.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define $\{\xi^{1}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$,
  $\{\tau^{1}_{i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$, $\{N^{1}(t)\}_{t\ge0}$, and
  $\{a^{1}_{t}\}_{t\ge0}$ as before but now with respect to
  $\{I^{(1)}_{t}\}_{t\ge0}$. Let the
  distribution of $I_{0}$ be a given probability measure $\nu$ on $E$
  and for $\lambda>0$ define
\begin{align*}
\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}
& = \exp\Big(A^{T}_{\xi^{1}_{1}}\frac{\tau^{1}_{1}}{\lambda}\Big)\exp\Big(A^{T}_{\xi^{1}_{2}}\frac{\tau^{1}_{2}}{\lambda}\Big)\dots\exp\Big(A^{T}_{\xi_{N^{1}(\lambda t)}}\frac{\tau_{N^{1}(\lambda t)}}{\lambda}\Big)\exp\Big(A^{T}_{\xi_{N^{1}(\lambda t)+1}}\frac{a^{1}_{\lambda t}}{\lambda}\Big)
\end{align*}
where we denote the transpose of a matrix $B$ by $B^{T}$. Observe that if $r=\lambda$, then $\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}$ has been defined so that $(\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t})^{T}$ and $S^{(r)}_{t}$ are equal in distribution.

By \cite{kurtz72}, $\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}\to \exp(\bar{A}^{T}t)$ almost surely in the strong operator topology as $\lambda\to\infty$. Since $\mathbb{R}^{d}$ is finite-dimensional, we actually have that the convergence holds in the uniform operator topology. Since $||B||=||B^{T}||$ for every matrix $B$, it follows that
\begin{align*}
||\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}||\to ||\exp(\bar{A}t)||\text{ almost surely as }\lambda\to\infty.
\end{align*}
Since $||\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}||\le\exp(\max_{i}||A_{i}||t)$ for every $\lambda>0$, the bounded convergence theorem gives
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}||\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}||\to ||\exp(\bar{A}t)||\text{ as }\lambda\to\infty.
\end{align*}
Since $||\tilde{S}^{\lambda}_{t}||$ and $||S^{r}_{t}||$ are equal in distribution, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{fast theorem}]
Since $\bar{A}$ is Hurwitz, there exist positive numbers $\beta$ and $\gamma$ so that for every $t\ge0$
\begin{align*}
||\exp(\bar{A}t)||\le\beta e^{-\gamma t}.
\end{align*}
Thus we can choose $T>0$ so that $||\exp(\bar{A}T)||<\frac{1}{4}$. By Lemma \ref{lemma Kurtz} there exists a $b>0$ so that if $r>b$, then $\mathbb{E}_{i}||S^{(r)}_{T}||<\frac{1}{2}$ for each $i\in E$, where $\mathbb{E}_{i}$ denotes the expectation with respect to the measure of the process $(I_{t})_{t\ge0}$ with initial measure $\mathbb{P}(I_{0}=i)=1$.

Let $r>b$ and define the process $\{M_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ and the filtration $\{\mathcal{F}_{n}\}_{n=0}^{\infty}$ by
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[c]
M_{n} & =||X_{nT}||
\end{aligned}
\quad\text{and }\quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
\mathcal{F}_{n} & =\sigma((X_{t},I_{t}):0\le t \le n T).
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
We claim that $M_{n}$ is a supermartingale with respect to $\mathcal{F}_{n}$. It's immediate that $M_{n}\in\mathcal{F}_{n}$ and $\mathbb{E}|M_{n}|\le e^{\Lambda nT}<\infty$ for $\Lambda:=\max_{i\in E}||A_{i}||$. For $0\le s\le t$, define $S(s,t)$ to be the operator that maps $X_{s}$ to $X_{t}$. We now check the supermartingale property.
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}[M_{n+1} |\mathcal{F}_{n}]
& \le \mathbb{E}[||S(nT,(n+1)T)|| \,||X_{nT}|| |\mathcal{F}_{n}]\\
& = M_{n}\mathbb{E}[||S(nT,(n+1)T)|| |\mathcal{F}_{n}]\\
& = M_{n}\mathbb{E}_{I_{nT}}||S(nT,(n+1)T)||\\
& \le \frac{1}{2}M_{n}.
\end{align*}
Taking the expectation of the above inequality and iterating yields $\mathbb{E}M_{n}\le\frac{1}{2^{n}}\mathbb{E}M_{0}$. Therefore $M_{n}$ converges in $L^{1}$ to 0 since $M_{n}\ge0$. Also since $M_{n}\ge0$, the martingale convergence theorem implies that $M_{n}$ must converge almost surely. Therefore $M_{n}$ converges almost surely to 0.

To conclude that $||X_{t}||\to0$ almost surely, we need to control $||X_{t}||$ at times between multiples of $T$. This is easily obtained since $||X_{t}||$ cannot grow faster than $e^{\Lambda t}$. Let $\omega\in\Omega$ be such that $M_{n}(\omega)\to0$ and let $\epsilon>0$. There exists $N=N(\omega,\epsilon)$ so that for all $n\ge N$,
\begin{align*}
||M_{n}(\omega)||< e^{-\Lambda T}\epsilon.
\end{align*}
Thus for all $t\ge NT$,
\begin{align*}
||X_{t}(\omega)||
 \le ||(S(t-T\lfloor t/T\rfloor,t)X_{T\lfloor t/T\rfloor})(\omega)||
 \le e^{\Lambda T}M_{\lfloor t/T\rfloor}(\omega)< \epsilon.
\end{align*}
Since this set of $\omega$'s has probability one, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\begin{example}
Assume $E=\{0,1\}$ and $Q = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} -1&1\\ 1&-1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$.
Define
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[c]
A_{0} & = \begin{pmatrix} 1&4\\ 0&-2 \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\qquad
\begin{aligned}[c]
A_{1} & = \begin{pmatrix} -2&0\\ 0&1 \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Then $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ each have a positive eigenvalue, but $\bar{A} = \frac{1}{2}(A_{0}+A_{1})$ is Hurwitz. So despite the fact that each individual matrix is unstable, Theorem \ref{fast theorem} guarantees that $||X_{t}||\to0$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ for sufficiently fast switching rate.
\end{example}

\section{Medium switching can be complicated}\label{medium section} We will now construct a switching example with two matrices, $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$, that is surprising for the following two reasons. First, the individual matrices $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ and the average $\bar{A}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{0}+A_{1})$ are all Hurwitz, but $||X_{t}||$ will still blow up at large time for certain values of the switching rate. In \cite{benaim12planar}, the authors show that $||X_{t}||$ can blow up if the two individual matrices $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ are Hurwitz as long as the average matrix has a positive eigenvalue. Thus our result shows that this assumption on the average matrix is not necessary.

Second, the asymptotic behavior of the following example has multiple ``phase transitions'' as the switching rate varies. That is, the process goes to zero at large time for both slow and fast switching, but blows up for medium switching.

We also remark that we can choose the negative real part of all the eigenvalues of $A_{0}$, $A_{1}$, and $\bar{A}$ to have arbitrarily large absolute value.

\begin{example}\label{one transition}
Assume $\mathbb{P}(X_{0}=0)=0$ and let $E=\{0,1\}$ and $Q = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} -1&1\\ 1&-1 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$. We will show the existence of matrices $A_{0},A_{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times2}$ and positive numbers $a<b$, so that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$A_{0}$, $A_{1}$ are each Hurwitz.
\item
$\bar{A}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{0}+A_{1})$ is Hurwitz.
\item
If $r\notin(a,b)$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$.
\item
$||X_{t}||\to\infty$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ for some value of $r\in(a,b)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}

For positive $\alpha$ and $c$, we define
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[c]
A_{0} & = \begin{pmatrix} -\alpha&c\\ 0&-\alpha \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\qquad
\begin{aligned}[c]
A_{1} & = \begin{pmatrix} -\alpha&0\\ -c&-\alpha \end{pmatrix}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
Observe that $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ each have $-\alpha<0$ as their only
eigenvalue. The two eigenvalues of $\bar{A}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{0}+A_{1})$
are $-\alpha\pm ic/2$. Thus $A_{0}$, $A_{1}$, and $\bar{A}$ are each
Hurwitz. By Theorems \ref{slow theorem} and \ref{fast theorem},
$||X_{t}||\to0$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely for sufficiently large
$r$ and for sufficiently small $r$. We will show that
$||X_{t}||\to+\infty$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely for some
intermediate values of $r$.

We use polar coordinates to study the large time behavior of
$||X_{t}||$. Our technique follows \cite{benaim12planar} in this
setting and the well known utility of  the polar representation when
studying Lyapunov exponents (especially  in
two-dimensions) which dates back to at least \cite{Khasminskii_1967}. Define the radial process $R_{t}:=||X_{t}||$ and
define the angular process $U_{t}$ as the point on the unit circle
$S^{1}$ given by $X_{t}/R_{t}$. A short calculation shows that between
jumps $R_{t}$ and $U_{t}$ satisfy
\begin{align}
\dot{R}_{t} & = R_{t}\langle A_{I_{t}}U_{t},U_{t}\rangle\label{radius ode}\\
\dot{U}_{t} & = A_{I_{t}}U_{t} - \langle A_{I_{t}}U_{t},U_{t}\rangle U_{t}\label{angular ode}.
\end{align}

The advantage of this decomposition is that the evolution of the angular process doesn't depend on the radial process. Therefore $(U_{t},I_{t})$ is a Markov process on $S^{1}\times \{0,1\}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{invariant measure}
If we identify $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ with $(\cos\theta,\sin\theta)\in S^{1}$, then the unique invariant measure of the angular process $U_{t}$ is given by
\begin{align*}
\mu(d\theta,i) & = p_{i}(\theta;r/c)1_{[0,2\pi]}(\theta)\,d\theta
\end{align*}
where for any parameter $\lambda>0$, the functions $p_{0}$ and $p_{1}$ satisfy
\begin{align}
p_{i}(\theta;\lambda) &= p_{1-i}(\theta+\pi/2;\lambda)=p_{i}(\theta+\pi;\lambda)\quad\text{for }\theta\in\mathbb{R}\label{periodic},\\
\text{and}\quad p_{0}(\theta;\lambda)&<p_{1}(\theta;\lambda)\quad\text{for }\theta\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)\label{greater than}.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Define the process $\Theta_{t}\in\mathbb{R}$ to be the lift of $U_t
\in S^1$
from the circle to its covering space $\mathbb{R}$. That is to say
$\Theta_t$ is the unique process
so that $U_{t}=(\cos\Theta_{t},\sin\Theta_{t})$, $\Theta_{t}$ is continuous in $t$, and $\Theta_{0}\in[0,2\pi)$. It follows from Equation (\ref{angular ode}) and plugging in our values for $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ that between jumps $\Theta_{t}$ satisfies
\begin{align*}
\dot{\Theta}_{t} & =
-c[I_{t}\cos^{2}(\Theta_{t})+(1-I_{t})\sin^{2}(\Theta_{t})]\le0.
\end{align*}
Since $\min_{i\in\{0,1\}}-c[i\cos^{2}(\theta)+(1-i)\sin^{2}(\theta)]\le-c/2<0$ for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$, it follows that $\Theta_{t}\to-\infty$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely. Since $\Theta_{t}$ is continuous, we conclude that the Markov process $(U_{t},I_{t})$ is recurrent and irreducible and must have a unique invariant measure.

If we identify $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ with $(\cos\theta,\sin\theta)\in S^{1}$, then the adjoint of generator of the Markov process $(U_{t},I_{t})$ is
\begin{align*}
(\mathcal{L}^{*}q)(\theta,i) & = \partial_{\theta}\left(c\left[(1-i)\sin^{2}(\theta)+i\cos^{2}(\theta)\right]q(\theta,i)\right) + r(q(\theta,1-i)-q(\theta,i)).
\end{align*}
For $\theta\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)$ and $\lambda>0$, define
\begin{align*}
H(\theta;\lambda)
 & = \exp{\left(-2\lambda\cot(2\theta)\right)}\int_{\theta}^{0}\exp{\left(2\lambda\cot(2y)\right)}\sec^{2}(y)\,dy\\
p_{0}(\theta;\lambda) & = C\csc^{2}(\theta)\lambda H(\theta)\\
p_{1}(\theta;\lambda) & = C\sec^{2}(\theta)\left[1-\lambda H(\theta)\right].
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
C(\lambda) = \left[4\int_{-\frac{\pi}{2}}^{0}\sec^{2}(x)+(\csc^{2}(x)-\sec^{2}(x))\lambda H(x)\,dx\right]^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Define $H(0;\lambda)=0=p_{0}(0;\lambda)$ and $p_{1}(0;\lambda)=C(\lambda)$. Extend $p_{1}$ and $p_{0}$ to be defined on the rest of the real line by Equation (\ref{periodic}). It is easy to check that these three functions are well-defined.

Writing $p_{i}(\theta;\lambda)$ as $p(\theta,i;\lambda)$, it is easy to check that $\mathcal{L}^{*}p(\theta,i;\lambda)=0$ for all $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ and for $i=\{0,1\}$. Thus, the measure $\mu$ defined in the statement of the lemma is the unique invariant measure for $(U_{t},I_{t})$.

We now check that $p_{0}$ and $p_{1}$ satisfy Equation (\ref{greater than}). Let $\lambda>0$ and observe that for $\theta\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)$, writing $1=\sin^{2}(y)\csc^{2}(y)$ in the integrand gives
\begin{align}\label{H less than sin}
\begin{aligned}
H(\theta;\lambda)
 & = \exp{\left(-2\lambda\cot(2\theta)\right)}\int_{\theta}^{0}\exp{\left(2\lambda\cot(2y)\right)}\sec^{2}(y)\sin^{2}(y)\csc^{2}(y)\,dy\\
 & < \exp{\left(-2\lambda\cot(2\theta)\right)}\sin^{2}(\theta)\int_{\theta}^{0}\exp{\left(2\lambda\cot(2y)\right)}\sec^{2}(y)\csc^{2}(y)\,dy\\
 & = \frac1\lambda\sin^{2}(\theta),
 \end{aligned}
\end{align}
since $\sin^{2}(\theta)$ is strictly decreasing on $(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)$ and
\begin{align*}
\frac{d}{dy}\left[\exp{\left(2\lambda\cot(2y)\right)}\right]
=-\lambda\exp{\left(2\lambda\cot(2y)\right)}\sec^{2}(y)\csc^{2}(y).
\end{align*}
Observe also that for $\theta\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)$
\begin{align}\label{H prime}
H'(\theta;\lambda) = \lambda H(\theta;\lambda)(\sec^{2}(\theta)+\csc^{2}(\theta))-\sec^{2}(\theta) = \frac{1}{C}(p_{0}(\theta;\lambda)-p_{1}(\theta;\lambda)).
\end{align}
Combining Equations (\ref{H less than sin}) and (\ref{H prime}), we have that for $\theta\in(-\frac{\pi}{2},0)$
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{C}(p_{0}(\theta;\lambda)-p_{1}(\theta;\lambda))
< 0.
\end{align*}
Thus Equation (\ref{greater than}) holds.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{G}
For $\lambda>0$, define
\begin{align*}
G(\lambda)& :=\int_{0}^{2\pi} (p_{0}(\theta;\lambda)-p_{1}(\theta;\lambda))\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)\,d\theta.
\end{align*}
Then $G(\lambda)>0$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item\label{fa}
If $G\left(\frac{r}{c}\right) > \frac{\alpha}{c}$, then $||X_{t}||\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\item
If $G\left(\frac{r}{c}\right) < \frac{\alpha}{c}$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
By Equations (\ref{periodic}) and (\ref{greater than}) in the statement of Lemma \ref{invariant measure}, we have that $(p_{0}(\theta;\lambda)-p_{1}(\theta;\lambda))\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)>0$ for all $\theta$ and thus $G(\lambda)>0$.

Now by Equation (\ref{radius ode}), we have that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\frac{R_{t}}{R_{0}}\right) = \frac{1}{t}\int_{0}^{t}\langle A_{I_{s}}U_{s},U_{s}\rangle\,ds.
\end{align*}
Identify $\theta\in\mathbb{R}$ with $e_{\theta}:=(\cos\theta,\sin\theta)\in S^{1}$. It follows from Lemma \ref{invariant measure} and Birkhoff's ergodic theorem that there exists a set $A\in S^{1}$ with $\mu(A)=1$ so that if $U_{0}\in A$, then
\begin{align}\label{angle convergence}
\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\frac{R_{t}}{R_{0}}\right) &\to \int\langle A_{i}e_{\theta},e_{\theta}\rangle\,\mu(d\theta,i)
\quad\text{almost surely as }t\to\infty.
\end{align}
Define $T_{A}:=\inf\{t\ge0:U_{t}\in A\}$ and observe that for any $U_{0}\in S^{1}$, we have that $T_{A}<\infty$ almost surely since $U_{t}$ is recurrent. Since $T_{A}$ is a stopping time, we have that the convergence in Equation (\ref{angle convergence}) actually holds for every $U_{0}\in S^{1}$.

Plugging in our choice of $A_{0}$ and $A_{1}$ and the definition of $\mu$ yields
\begin{align*}
\int\langle A_{i}e_{\theta},e_{\theta}\rangle\,\mu(d\theta,i)
& = \int_{0}^{2\pi}\langle A_{0}e_{\theta},e_{\theta}\rangle p_{0}(\theta;r/c)\,d\theta
+ \int_{0}^{2\pi}\langle A_{1}e_{\theta},e_{\theta}\rangle p_{1}(\theta;r/c)\,d\theta\\
& = c\int_{0}^{2\pi}(p_{0}(\theta;r/c)-p_{1}(\theta;r/c))\cos(\theta)\sin(\theta)\,d\theta
- \alpha\\
& = cG\left(\frac{r}{c}\right) - \alpha.
\end{align*}
Hence if $G\left(\frac{r}{c}\right) > \frac{\alpha}{c}$, then $\lim_{t\to\infty}\frac{1}{t}\log\left(\frac{R_{t}}{R_{0}}\right)>0$ almost surely and thus $||X_{t}||\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely. Similarly if $G\left(\frac{r}{c}\right) < \frac{\alpha}{c}$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.
\end{proof}

Since $G\left(\frac{r}{c}\right)>0$ for every pair of positive numbers $r$ and $c$, it is immediate that we can choose $r$, $c$, and $\alpha$ so that $||X_{t}||\to\infty$ as $t\to\infty$ almost surely.

\subsection{Many  transitions between stable and unstable}

The following example shows that there exist two matrices such that as
the switching rate varies from zero to infinity, the asymptotic
behavior of the system will switch between converging to zero and
converging to infinity at least any prespecified number of times.

\begin{example}\label{many transitions}
  Assume $\mathbb{P}(X_{0}=0)=0$ and let $E=\{0,1\}$ and $Q =
  \left( \begin{smallmatrix} -1&1\\ 1&-1 \end{smallmatrix}
  \right)$. We will show that for any positive integer $k$, there
  exist matrices $A_{0},A_{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{2k\times2k}$ and positive
  numbers $a_{1}<b_{1}<a_{2}<b_{2}<\dots<a_{k}<b_{k}$ so that
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$A_{0}$, $A_{1}$ are each Hurwitz.
\item
$\bar{A}=\frac{1}{2}(A_{0}+A_{1})$ is Hurwitz.
\item
If $r\notin\bigcup_{i=1}^{k}(a_{i},b_{i})$, then $||X_{t}||\to0$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$.
\item
For every $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$, $||X_{t}||\to\infty$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ for some value of $r\in(a_{i},b_{i})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{example}

Let $k$ be a given positive integer and define the two block diagonal matrices $A_{0},A_{1}\in\mathbb{R}^{2k\times2k}$ by
\begin{align}\label{blocks}
\begin{aligned}[c]
A_{0} & = \begin{pmatrix}
A^{1}_{0} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & A^{2}_{0} & \cdots &  0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & A^{k}_{0}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\qquad
\begin{aligned}[c]
A_{1} & = \begin{pmatrix}
A^{1}_{1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\ 0 & A^{2}_{1} & \cdots &  0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & \cdots & A^{k}_{1}
\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}\label{singles}
\begin{aligned}[c]
A^{i}_{0} & = \begin{pmatrix} -\alpha_{i}&c_{i}\\ 0&-\alpha_{i} \end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\qquad
\begin{aligned}[c]
A^{i}_{1} & = \begin{pmatrix} -\alpha_{i}&0\\ -c_{i}&-\alpha_{i}\end{pmatrix}
\end{aligned}
\end{align}
for some positive numbers $\{c_{i}\}_{i=1}^{k}$ and
$\{\alpha_{i}\}_{i=1}^{k}$. It's immediate that $A_{0}$, $A_{1}$, and
$\bar{A}$ are all Hurwitz.

Let $X_{t}$ denote the $\mathbb{R}^{2k}$-valued process corresponding
to (\ref{blocks}) and $X^{(i)}_{t}$ the $\mathbb{R}^{2}$-valued process
corresponding to (\ref{singles}) for each $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$. Since
the ODEs for $X^{(i)}$ and $X^{(j)}$ are not coupled for $i\ne j$, we have
that $X_t=(X_t^{1)}, \dots,X_t^{(k)})$ when viewed as an
$(\mathbb{R}^{2})^k$-valued process. In particular, one has
\begin{align*}
||X_{t}||^{2}=\sum_{i=1}^{k}||X^{(i)}_{t}||^{2}.
\end{align*}
Thus $||X_{t}||\to0$ if and only if $||X^{(i)}_{t}||\to0$ for every
$i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$. Furthermore if $||X^{(i)}_{t}||\to\infty$ for some
$i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$, then $||X_{t}||\to\infty$.

The proof proceeds by choosing the parameters $\alpha_i$ and $c_i$ as
in Example~\ref{one transition} so that $X^{(i)}$ is unstable for
switching rates $r$ in an interval $(a_i,b_i)$ but stable out side of
the interval. By arranging so that the collection of intervals
$\{(a_j,b_j) : j =1,\dots,k\} $ are disjoint we will  succeed at
constructing the desired matrices $A_0$ and $A_1$.

More explicitly, it follows from Lemma~\ref{G} and Theorems~\ref{slow
  theorem} and \ref{fast theorem} that we can choose $r_{1}$, $c_{1}$,
$\alpha_{1}$, and $a_{1}<b_{1}$ so that
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[c]
G\left(\frac{r_{1}}{c_{1}}\right)>\frac{\alpha_{1}}{c_{1}}
\end{aligned}
\quad\text{and}\quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
  G\left(\frac{r}{c_{1}}\right)<\frac{\alpha_{1}}{c_{1}}\text{ if
  }r\notin(a_{1},b_{1}).
\end{aligned}\end{align*}
Choose $N>\frac{b_{1}}{a_{1}}$ and for $i\in\{2,\dots,k\}$ define
\begin{align*}
\begin{aligned}[c]
a_{i}=\frac{a_{1}}{N^{i-1}},
\end{aligned}
\quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
b_{i}=\frac{b_{1}}{N^{i-1}},
\end{aligned}
\quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
\alpha_{i}=\frac{\alpha_{1}}{N^{i-1}},
\end{aligned}
\quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
c_{i}=\frac{c_{1}}{N^{i-1}},
\end{aligned}
\quad
\begin{aligned}[c]
r_{i}=\frac{r_{1}}{N^{i-1}}.
\end{aligned}
\end{align*}
To see that our intervals $(a_{i},b_{i})$ don't overlap, observe that
$a_{i}<b_{i}$ for each $i$ and
\begin{align*}
  b_{i}=\frac{b_{1}}{N^{i-1}} < \frac{Na_{1}}{N^{i-1}} = a_{i-1}.
\end{align*}
Next observe that if $r\notin(a_{i},b_{i})$, then
$rN^{i-1}\notin(a_{1},b_{1})$ and therefore
\begin{align*}
G\left(\frac{r}{c_{i}}\right) = G\left(\frac{rN^{i-1}}{c_{1}}\right)<\frac{\alpha_{1}}{c_{1}}.
\end{align*}
Thus, $||X^{(i)}_{t}||\to0$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ if $r\notin(a_{i},b_{i})$.

Finally observe that $r_{i}\in(a_{i},b_{i})$ and
\begin{align*}
  G\left(\frac{r_{i}}{c_{i}}\right) =
  G\left(\frac{r_{1}}{c_{1}}\right)>\frac{\alpha_{1}}{c_{1}} =
  \frac{\alpha_{i}}{c_{i}}.
\end{align*}
Thus, $||X^{(i)}_{t}||\to\infty$ almost surely as $t\to\infty$ if the
switching rate is $r_{i}\in(a_{i},b_{i})$.

\section{Conclusions}
Stochastically switched linear ODEs are one of the simplest examples
of stochastically switched systems. However despite their simplicity,
we have shown that their behavior can be quite rich. First, the large
time behavior can depend on the switching rate in a very delicate
way. Second, this large time behavior can be very different from the
large time behavior of both the individual systems and the average
system.

\medskip

{\bf Acknowledgement.}  JCM would like to thank Yuri Bakhtin for
stimulating discussions. This research was partially supported by NSF
grants EF-1038593 (HFN, MCR), DMS-0854879 (JCM), DMS-0943760 (MCR),
and NIH grant R01 ES019876 (DT).  \medskip

Probability (math.PR); Dynamical Systems (math.DS)


On Statistical Independence and No-Correlation for a Pair of Random Variables Taking Two Values: Classical and Quantum

Abstract: It is well known that when a pair of random variables is statistically independent, it has no-correlation (zero covariance, $E[XY] - E[X]E[Y] = 0$), and that the converse is not true. However, if both of these random variables take only two values, no-correlation entails statistical independence. We provide here a general proof. We subsequently examine whether this equivalence property carries over to quantum mechanical systems. A counter-example is explicitly constructed to show that it does not. This observation provides yet another simple theorem separating classical and quantum theories.

\section{Introduction}

Differences and boundaries between the
classical and quantum mechanics, as manifested by the Bell's inequalities\cite{bell,sakurai}, have been under active research investigations both
theoretically and experimentally.  In this paper, we present yet another simple theorem which separates
classical and quantum probability theories.

It is well known and can be simply proven that when two random variables are statistically independent,
they are not correlated. The converse is not true in general (e.g., \cite{feller}). We can have a pair of random variables which is not
correlated but not statistically independent, and such examples can be easily constructed as well. (A known exception is when their joint probability density function has the form of a bivariate normal distribution\cite{bain}.)

We, however,  first show that when both of these random variables are not continuous and take only two distinct values, statistical independence and no-correlation become equivalent in general. In other words,
the proposed theorem means that one cannot have an uncorrelated pair of random variables with two distinct values which is not statistically independent.

We, then, consider the corresponding question in quantum mechanics. The notion of statistical independence is associated with that of separability of state vectors for a two-particle quantum system. We can see that the separability entails no-correlation as in the classical probabilistic framework. However,
the above-mentioned theorem about two-state systems does not carry over to quantum mechanics.
We show this by explicitly constructing a counter-example.

\section{Classical case}

Consider two random variables $X$ and $Y$, such that they both take only two distinct finite values $(x_1, x_2)$ and $(y_1,y_2)$. Denote the joint probability distribution for these variables as
$P(X:Y)$, and assume it is given by
\begin{equation}
p({x_i}:{y_j}) \equiv P(X={x_i}:Y={y_j}) = p_{ij}, \quad ( i,j \in \{1,2\} )
\label{jp}
\end{equation}
Then, the probability distributions $P(X)$ for $X$ and $P(Y)$ for $Y$ are simply expressed as follows.
\begin{equation}
p({x_i}) \equiv P(X={x_i}) = p_{i1} + p_{i2}, \quad
p({y_j}) \equiv P(Y={y_j}) = p_{1j} + p_{2j}.
\label{ep}
\end{equation}
By the requirement that both $X, Y$ take only two values,
\begin{equation}
p({x_1}) + p({x_2}) = p({y_1}) + p({y_2}) = 1.
\label{sp}
\end{equation}

These relations can be summarized in the following table.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth]{sind1.eps}
\end{center}
\label{sind1}
\end{figure}

The statistical independence of $X$ and $Y$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
P(X:Y)=P(X)P(Y).
\label{ind0}
\end{equation}
Also, with the definition of expectation values as
\begin{equation}
E[X] = \sum_i p({x_i}){x_i},\quad
E[Y] = \sum_i p({y_i}){y_i},\quad
E[XY] = \sum_{i,j} p({x_i}:{y_j}){x_i}{y_j},
\label{ev}
\nonumber
\end{equation}
we define that $X$ and $Y$ are not correlated when their covariance is zero.
\begin{equation}
Cov[X,Y] \equiv E[XY] - E[X]E[Y] = 0,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
or equivalently,
\begin{equation}
E[XY] = E[X]E[Y].
\label{noc0}
\end{equation}

We can see from the above definition that given (\ref{ind0}), (\ref{noc0}) follows. Our main statement here is
that the converse is true, i.e., (\ref{ind0}) and (\ref{noc0}) are equivalent when both of these random variable take two finite distinct values. In passing, we note that if either (or both) $X$ or $Y$ takes more than two values, one can easily create examples showing this equivalence does not hold.
\vspace{1em}

\noindent
{\bf{Theorem 1}}
\vspace{1em}

When both random variables $X$ and $Y$ take two distinct finite values as set up above, and
\begin{equation}E[XY] = E[X]E[Y],
\label{noc2}
\end{equation}
then
\begin{equation}P(X:Y) = P(X)P(Y).
\label{ind2}
\end{equation}
\vspace{1em}

\noindent
{\bf{Proof}}
\vspace{1em}

Let us define all the relevant probabilities with three parameters using
relations (\ref{jp}), (\ref{ep}) and (\ref{sp}). We set
\begin{equation}
\alpha = p_{11},\quad u = p({x_1}), \quad v = p({y_1}).\nonumber
\end{equation}
Then, other relevant probabilities can be expressed as summarized in the following updated table.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.23\columnwidth]{sind2.eps}
\end{center}
\label{sind2}
\end{figure}

By definition of the expectation values, we have the following
\begin{eqnarray}
E[X] &=& u x_1 + (1-u) x_2, \nonumber\\
E[Y] &=& v y_1 + (1-v) y_2, \nonumber\\
E[XY] &=& \alpha {x_1}{y_1} +(u - \alpha){x_1}{y_2} + (v - \alpha){x_2}{y_1} + (1 - v - u + \alpha){x_2}{y_2}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The condition
(\ref{noc2})
is now used together with above so that we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
0 &=& E[XY] - E[X]E[Y] \nonumber\\
&=& \{ \alpha {x_1}{y_1} +(u - \alpha){x_1}{y_2} + (v - \alpha){x_2}{y_1} + (1 - v - u + \alpha){x_2}{y_2}\} \nonumber\\
&\ & \quad - \{u x_1 + (1-u) x_2 \}\{v y_1 + (1-v) y_2\} \nonumber\\
&=& (\alpha - u v)(x_1 - x_2)(y_1 - y_2).\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}

By the assumption that both of these stochastic variables take two distinct values ($x_1 \neq x_2,y_1 \neq y_2$), this leads to
\begin{equation}
\alpha - u v = p_{11} - p({x_1})p({y_1}) = 0.\nonumber
\end{equation}
From here, we can show that other joint probabilities can also be decomposed, leading to
\begin{equation}P(X:Y) = P(X)P(Y). \quad Q.E.D.
\end{equation}

We note that above theorem is obtained even though we have eight parameters (four joint probabilities and $x_{1,2}, y_{1,2}$) with only two equations of constraints:(\ref{noc2}) and the relation that the sum of the four joint probabilities is equal to 1.

\section{Quantum case}

We now address the same question in quantum mechanics. In particular, we consider the analogous situation using
a pair of quantum particles, each taking two states. Such quantum particles are called qubits, and often used in the context of quantum information theory as a unit of information (e.g., \cite{wootters,schumacher,nielsen}). They are also used (e.g.,\cite{bell,clauser,leggett,ohira,pearle,popsecu}) in considering foundations of
quantum mechanics and quantum measurement theories (e.g., \cite{araki,yanase,wheeler,allah}).

We consider the following. We have two quantum particles $A$ and $B$.
The total normalized state vector $\ket{\psi}$ is given by

\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi}= \sum_{i,j} \gamma_{i,j}\ket{a_i}\otimes\ket{b_j}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\ket{a}$ and $\ket{b}$ describe the state of particles $A$ and $B$, and $\gamma_{i,j}$ are quantum amplitudes given by complex scalars.

The two particle system is called separable when all $\gamma_{i,j}$ can be written as a product of two scalars.
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{i,j} = {\alpha_i}{\beta_j} \nonumber
\end{equation}
In other words, the system is separable when the total state vector can be decomposed as a product of each
normalized state of $A$ and $B$.
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi} = \ket{\psi_A}\otimes\ket{\psi_B} \nonumber
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\ket{\psi_A}= \sum_{i} \alpha_i \ket{a_i}  \quad  \ket{\psi_B}= \sum_{j} \beta_j \ket{b_j}.\nonumber
\end{equation}

We make a natural correspondence between the notion of statistical independence with this separability of state vectors. The state vectors which are not separable are called entangled state vectors.

In order to consider expectation values of quantum observables,
we now set up two operators $\mathcal{X}$ and $\mathcal{Y}$ as
$\mathcal{X} = {\mathcal{Q}_A}\otimes{\bf{1}}_B$ and $\mathcal{Y} = {\bf{1}}_A\otimes\mathcal{R}_B$.
Here,
${\mathcal{Q}_A}$ and ${\mathcal{R}_B}$ are quantum observable operators for $A$ and $B$ respectively, and ${\bf{1}}$
is the identity operator.

With the above set up, we first proceed to show that separability entails no-correlations.
In terms of equations, we want to show that if $\ket{\psi}$ is separable,
\begin{equation}
\bra{\psi}\mathcal{X}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\psi}= \bra{\psi}\mathcal{X}\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\psi}.
\label{nocorrelation}
\end{equation}
This follows immediately from the definition of separability as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bra{\psi}\mathcal{X}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\psi} &=& \bra{\psi_A}\otimes\bra{\psi_B}\mathcal{X}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\psi_A}\otimes\ket{\psi_B}\nonumber\\
&=& \bra{\psi_A}\mathcal{Q}\ket{\psi_A}\bra{\psi_B}\mathcal{R}\ket{\psi_B}
= \bra{\psi}\mathcal{X}\ket{\psi}\bra{\psi}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\psi}.\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
We note in passing that validity of this property is not limited to two-state particles, but for general separable systems.

Now, we limit ourselves to two-state systems and examine whether analog of the Theorem 1 is
valid in the quantum case. In other words, we want to examine the following statement.
\vspace{1em}

If, in the above setting, particles $A$ and $B$ take two states (as in qubits) and the no-correlation condition (\ref{nocorrelation}) is satisfied, then the state vector is separable.
\vspace{1em}

It turns out that the above statement does not hold in quantum systems. We show this by explicitly constructing a counter-example. In order to do this, we use a non-separable (entangled) Bell state vector, and
give observable operators which satisfy (\ref{nocorrelation}).

Bell state vector is a representative example of entangled state vectors. We use the following Bell state for our two-particle, two-state system.
\begin{equation}
\ket{\phi}= {1\over\sqrt{2}}(\ket{a_1}\otimes\ket{b_1} + \ket{a_2}\otimes\ket{b_2}), \nonumber
\end{equation}
where $\ket{a_{(1,2)}}$ are the orthonormal states of the particle $A$, and similarly $\ket{b_{(1,2)}}$ for the particle $B$. This state is clearly not separable.
We compute expectation values with respect to this Bell state vector.

The expectation value for the product of the observable operators is given as
\begin{eqnarray}
\bra{\phi}\mathcal{X}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\phi} &=& {1\over 2} (\bra{a_1}\otimes\bra{b_1} + \bra{a_2}\otimes\bra{b_2})({\mathcal{Q}_A}\otimes{\bf{1}}_B)({\bf{1}}_A\otimes\mathcal{R}_B)(\ket{a_1}\otimes\ket{b_1} + \ket{a_2}\otimes\ket{b_2})\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over 2}(q_{11}r_{11} + q_{12}r_{12} + q_{21}r_{21} + q_{22}r_{22}),
\label{leftcorr}
\end{eqnarray}
where $q_{ij} = \bra{a_i}\mathcal{Q}_A\ket{a_j}$ and $r_{ij} = \bra{b_i}\mathcal{R}_B\ket{b_j}$.

On the other hand, the product of expectation values for the two particles can be computed as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
\bra{\phi}\mathcal{X}\ket{\phi}\bra{\phi}\mathcal{Y}\ket{\phi}
&=& {1\over 4} (\bra{a_1}\otimes\bra{b_1} + \bra{a_2}\otimes\bra{b_2})
({\mathcal{Q}_A}\otimes{\bf{1}}_B)
(\ket{a_1}\otimes\ket{b_1} + \ket{a_2}\otimes\ket{b_2})\nonumber\\
&\times &(\bra{a_1}\otimes\bra{b_1} + \bra{a_2}\otimes\bra{b_2})({\bf{1}}_A\otimes\mathcal{R}_B)(\ket{a_1}\otimes\ket{b_1} + \ket{a_2}\otimes\ket{b_2})\nonumber\\
&=& {1\over 4}((q_{11} + q_{22})(r_{11} + r_{22}))\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over 4}(q_{11}r_{11} + q_{22}r_{11} + q_{11}r_{22} + q_{22}r_{22}).
\label{rightcorr}
\end{eqnarray}

The condition for no-correlation is satisfied when (\ref{leftcorr}) is equal to (\ref{rightcorr}). We can achieve this by assigning various concrete values for the matrix elements $q_{ij}, r_{ij}$ of
${\mathcal{Q}_A}$ and ${\mathcal{R}_B}$ in the basis of $\ket{a_{(1,2)}}$ and $\ket{b_{(1,2)}}$ respectively. One example is shown below.
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal{Q}_A}=
\begin{bmatrix}
3 & 1 \\
1 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
,\quad
{\mathcal{R}_B}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 1 \\
1 & 3
\end{bmatrix}
\end{equation}

The above observation means that no-correlation does not necessarily leads to separability for this two-particle two-state quantum system.
Thus, we have shown that Theorem 1, which holds for classical probabilities, does not carry over to analogous quantum systems.

\section{Conclusion}

We have considered a relation between statistical independence and correlation both in classical and quantum theories. In particular, we noted that for two-state two-variable systems, the classical probability show equivalence between the statistical independence and no-correlation. However, this equivalence in analogous quantum systems does not hold. Our observation provides yet another example of differences between classical and quantum theories.

\section*{Acknowledgment}

The author would like to thank Philip M. Pearle, Professor Emeritus of Hamilton College, for his comments and encouragements.
This work was supported by funding from Ohagi Hospital, Hashimoto, Wakayama, Japan, and by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from Japan Society for the Promotion of Science No.16H01175, No.16H03360, No.18H04443.

Quantum Physics (quant-ph); Probability (math.PR)