Arxiv:2010.14365V1 [Math.DS] 27 Oct 2020 Theorem

arXiv:2010.14365v1 [math.DS] 27 Oct 2020 Theorem. Theorem. rainlnumber irrational hc npriua a eapidt h process the to applied be can particular in which oso ii hoe ndnmclsseswudb h olwn.Lt( Let following. the be would systems dynamical in theorem limit Poisson oso ii hoe o euntmsudrteGusmap Gauss the under Doeblin times rephrase return can for one theorem system, limit Poisson dynamical a symbolic a as fractions otne rcinepnincnegsi itiuint Poisson q a partial to large distribution [ certain by in of denoting converges number precisely, the expansion that fraction says continued which 1937, around h umto nietebakt onstenme fvst of visits of number the counts brackets the inside summation The oso.Tesuyo oso ii a o euntmsi yaia sy dynamical in ([ times Hirata return by for 1990s law early limit the Poisson in of initiated exists, distribution study was limit The the that clear Poisson. not is it process, independent the eapoaiiyspace, probability a be fmaual es If sets. measurable of n OSO II HOE O IB-AKVMAPS GIBBS-MARKOV FOR THEOREM LIMIT POISSON A oprdwt h oso ii hoe o ioilrno variables random binomial for theorem limit Poisson the with Compared Doeblin by proved was fractions continued for theorem limit Poisson A 2010 ae oiec ([ Iosifescu Later lim →∞ n n t trto by iteration -th lim →∞ ahmtc ujc Classiﬁcation. Subject Mathematics Leb itiuint oso a.Apyn ocniudfracti continued to lengt Applying theorem. cylindrical limit Poisson law. bounded Doeblin’s Poisson with extends a sets to shrinking distribution of sequence a Abstract. Leb { o every For o every For x ( ∈ n x lim →∞ (0 ∈ x epoefrGbsMro asta h ubro iisto visits of number the that maps Gibbs-Markov for prove We , ): 1) 27 (0 ∈ µ nµ , > θ > θ )poe oso ii hoe for theorem limit Poisson a proved ]) (0 ( T T ): 1) a hr r exactly are there , oeta,since that, Note . 1 ( ea be 1), a , A x 0 0 n X i n k , k , 2 =0 ∈ − ) . . . , 1 µ : Ω → ∈ ∈ 1 peevn a nΩ and Ω, on map -preserving 1. (0 ] N N > t a , n X , i UNZHANG XUAN 0 0 =0 [ Introduction − θn i 1 1 ]+1 as 0 ∈ 1 15,6F5 37C30. 60F05, 11K50, A N ) n 1 a k ◦ , n ◦ T h otne rcinepnino an of expansion fraction continued the T ∞ → i i swith ’s { ( i 25 x ( 1 x = ) A ) ise ([ Pitskel ]), = ) n hnfrevery for then , ◦ k { k a ) T a )! i i n θn > = } } i n ∈ ( = = ∈ N { θ N 0 A , o 2) log ( t k raigcontinued Treating . scnegsin converges hs 32 n,ti result this ons, n θ k 1 ngnrli o an not is general in 1 ! ψ } e o 2) log ) ia ([ Sinai ]), 6 T n − mxn processes, -mixing 1 ∈ k t k i : N . x 6 ∈ k 0 1 e ln being alone let k ! x easequence a be stermas theorem ’s →{ 7→ N oinsi a in uotients e n k 1 − to } 0 a.More law. ! e θ 1 − o 2 log nideal an , A 1 33 /x Ω θ n o 2 log )etc. ]) , 1 } . stems ([ B until . 15 µ , . ]) ) 2 XUAN ZHANG

Since then, there are various results confirming the Poisson limit theorem and also obtaining error estimates under appropriate assumptions. See for example [9, 13, 26, 22, 16, 14, 5, 8, 31, 19]. But in general, the class of possible limit distributions is rather large, more than just Poisson, as shown by Lacroix ([30]) and Chaumoˆıtre and Kupsa ([7]), We refer to Haydn’s recent review ([20]) on this and related topics. Let nµ(An) → t as n → ∞, then the measure µ(An) shrinks to 0. Most of the previous results consider a sequence of shrinking sets An which converge to a generic non-periodic point (like in Theorem 2.6 below). When An shrinks to a periodic point, An always intersects with its pre-images via small iterations of T . In this case it had been pointed out by both Pitskel and Hirata that the limit distribution can not be Poisson. Later Haydn and Vaienti ([24]) showed for some mixing maps, that when An are cylinder sets of growing cylindrical lengths (the level of the filtration in which An lives) and converging to a periodic point, the limit distribution of the number of return times becomes compound Poisson. But none 1 of these results covers Doeblin’s theorem, in which case An = (0, [θn]+1 ) converges to a non-generic point, the endpoint 0, and has a constant cylindrical length. In this note we study the limit distribution of the number of visits to a sequence of shrinking sets with bounded cylindrical lengths. When the sequence converges to a single point, the accumulation point may be periodic or a compactification point of the space (like the endpoint 0 in Doeblin’s theorem). This type of sequences seems novel in the literature to our knowledge. Our main result (Theorem 4.1) shows a Poisson limit theorem for Gibbs-Markov maps with this type of sequences. Some applications to continued fractions are given at the end of the note, including an extension of Doeblin’s theorem. Examples of Gibbs-Markov maps are given in the next section, including some Markov chains with countable states, Markov maps of the unit interval, parabolic rational maps. We use perturbation of transfer operator to study limit distribution of the number of return times, following the idea of Hirata ([25]). It turns out that for the type of sequences in our consideration, the size of this perturbation is not asymptotically small in the Banach space where the transfer operator has good spectral property. Still, a perturbation theorem of Keller and Liverani ([28]) allows us to deal with this situation using a weaker norm. We note that this perturbation theorem has been used widely by many authors to study closely-related problems, such as limit distribution of the first return time and escape rate, for example in [29, 18, 11, 6].

2. Gibbs-Markov maps We recall the definition of Gibbs-Markov maps from [3]. Let (Ω, B,µ) be a probability space and let T be a non-singular transformation. Consider a countable n−1 partition α of Ω mod µ, let α = {ai : i ∈ I}. Denote by α0 the refined partition n−1 −i i=0 T α and by σ(·) the σ-algebra generated by a partition. For a set A ∈ σ(αn−1), we call the minimal m ∈ N such that A ∈ σ(αm−1) its cylindrical length. W 0 0 Definition 2.1. A quintuple (Ω, B,µ,T,α) is called a Gibbs-Markov map if it satisfies the following conditions. −n (1) α is a strong generator of B under T , i.e. σ({T α : n ∈ N0})= B mod µ. (2) (big image property) inf µ(Ta) > 0. a∈α A POISSON LIMIT THEOREM FOR GIBBS-MARKOV MAPS 3

(3) For every a ∈ α, Ta ∈ σ(α) mod µ, moreover the restriction T |a is invertible and non-singular. N n−1 (4) For every n ∈ and a ∈ α0 , denote the non-singular inverse branch of −n n n ′ T on T a by va : T a → a and its Radon-Nikodym derivative by va. N n−1 There exist r ∈ (0, 1) and M > 0 such that for any n ∈ ,a ∈ α0 and x, y ∈ T na a.e. v′ (x) a − 1 6 M · r(x, y), v′ (y) a n− 1 n−1 min {n∈N:T (x) and T (y) belong to different elements of α} where r(x, y) is the metric r . We present some typical examples. The first two have already been mentioned in [3]. Example 2.2 (Markov chain with countable states). Let S be a countable set, P = (px,y)x,y∈S be an irreducible ergodic stochastic matrix on S and π be the N0 stationary probability measure. Let Ω = {x = (x0, x1,...) ∈ S : pxkxk+1 > 0, k ∈ N0}, B the σ-field generated by all the cylinder sets of the form [s0, ··· ,sn]= {x ∈ Ω: x0 = s0,...,xn = sn}, T be the shift map, α = {[s]: s ∈ S}, µ([s0, ··· ,sn]) = n−1

πs0 psksk+1 . k=0 π p ···p p ′ s0 s0s1 sn−1sn snx0 n SupposeQ a = [s0, ··· ,sn], then va(x) = for x ∈ T a. The πx0 system is Gibbs-Markov if and only if psx / psy − 1 is uniformly bounded for all πx πy s,x,y ∈ S with psx,psy > 0.

An explicit example is given by ([17, XV(2.k)]):

f1 f2 f3 f4 ··· 1 0 0 0 ···  0 1 0 0 ··· P =  0 0 1 0 ···    ·······    ·······     where i∈N fi = 1. Let rk = i>k fi. Suppose k∈N rk < ∞, then the stationary measure π = (π , π r , π r ,...). T is Gibbs-Markov if and only if C−1 6 P 0 0 1 0P2 P fi / fj 6 C for some constant C > 0 and for all i, j. For example, f = 1 1 . ri−1 rj−1 i i! e−1 Example 2.3 (Markov interval map, [10, §7.4]). Let Ω = (0, 1), B be Borel σ- algebra, Leb be Lebesgue measure, and α = {ai} be a partition of Ω mod µ into open intervals. Suppose that T :Ω → Ω satisﬁes the following conditions. 2 • T |ai is strictly monotonic and extends to a C function on ai for each i. • if T (ak) ∩ aj 6= ∅, then T (ak) ⊃ aj . • T is expanding: there exists an m ∈ N such that inf inf |T ′(x)| > 0, inf inf |T m′(x)| := λ> 1. ai∈α x∈ai ai∈α x∈ai • T satisﬁes the Adler property: |T ′′(x)| sup sup ′ 2 < ∞. ai∈α x,y∈ai T (y) 4 XUAN ZHANG

Then there exists a constant M such that: |T n′′(x)| 6 M, for all x, y ∈ a ∈ αn−1,n ∈ N. T n′(y)2 0 N n−1 n Hence for some constant M1, and for all n ∈ ,a ∈ α0 ,x,y ∈ T a, v′ (x) a − 1 6 M |x − y|. v′ (y) 1 a 1 Let r = (1/λ) m . There is a constant M such that for any x, y, if k ∈ N is the 2 minimum natural number such that T k−1x and T k−1y belong to different elements k−1 of α, supposing x, y ∈ b ∈ α0 , k ′ k |x − y| 6 Leb(b) = Leb(vb(T b)) 6 kvbk∞ 6 M2r . The big image property may not always hold for T . If it does, then T is a Gibbs- Markov map. For example, let α = {{a1 = n} : n ∈ N} be the partition by the first partial quotient in the continued fraction expansion and let T be the Gauss 1 map: x 7→ { x }. Then it is a Gibbs-Markov map. Furthermore, let µ be the Gauss 1 1 measure µ(A)= log 2 A 1+x dx, then the continued fraction map ((0, 1), B,µ,T,α) is a probability-preserving Gibbs-Markov map. R The following example appears in [2] in the study of Poincaréseries of the surface C \ Z. Let x 1 1−2x , x ∈ (0, 3 ) 1 1 1 R(x)=  x − 2, x ∈ ( 3 , 2 ) .  1 1 2 − x , x ∈ ( 2 , 1) Denote A := (0, 1 ),B := ( 1 , 1 ), C := ( 1 , 1), and U := A ∩ R−1Ac = ( 1 , 1 ), W := 3 3 2  2 5 3 −1 c 1 2 1 2 C ∩ R C = ( 2 , 3 ),J := U ∪ B ∪ W = ( 5 , 3 ). Induce R on J, that is, let τ RJ (x)= R (x) k −1 where τ = min{k ∈ N : R (x) ∈ J}. Define B1 = B ∩ R J, n−1 n−1 −j −n −j −n Un = U ∩ R C ∩ R (B ∪ W ), Wn = W ∩ R A ∩ R (U ∪ B), j=1 j=1 \ \ n−1 n−1 − −j −n + −j −n Bn = B ∩ R A ∩ R (U ∪ B), Bn = B ∩ R C ∩ R (B ∪ W ), j=1 j=1 \ \ − + N αJ = {Un, Wn,B1,Bn+1,Bn+1 : n ∈ }.

Then (J, B|J , Leb, RJ , αJ ) is Gibbs-Markov. Example 2.4 (Rational functions on the Riemann sphere, [12]). Let S2 denote the Riemann sphere. A rational function function T : S2 → S2 has the form P (z) C 2 T (z)= Q(z) when T is restricted to ⊂ S and where P and Q are polynomials (Q 6= 0) of maximal degree > 2. Restrict T to its Julia set 2 n J(T )= {z ∈ S : {T }n∈N is not normal at z}. These transformations include important examples for Gibbs-Markov maps. T is called hyperbolic if J(T ) does not contain any critical point or rationally indiﬀerent point. In this case T : J(T ) → J(T ) is expanding and has a ﬁnite Markov partition. A POISSON LIMIT THEOREM FOR GIBBS-MARKOV MAPS 5

For general T : J(T ) → J(T ) a probabilistic measure µ on J(T ) is called conformal for a continuous potential ϕ : J(T ) → R if

µ(T A)= eϕ(y)dµ(y) ZA for every measurable A where T |A : A → T A is invertible. Equivalently, µ is characterized by ∗ Lϕµ = µ −ϕ(y) where Lϕ(f)(z) = Ty=z f(y)e denotes the transfer operator. In case of a hyperbolic T , for any ϕ there is λ> 0 such that there is a eλϕ-conformal measure P m by Sullivan’s result [34]. The system (J(T ),m,T,α) is Gibbs-Markov where α is the finite Markov partition. The transformation T is called parabolic if J(T ) does not contain critical points, but has rationally indifferent periodic points. In this case it is known by [12] that a conformal measure exists if the potential ϕ satisfies P (T, ϕ) > sup ϕ where P (T, ϕ) denotes the pressure of ϕ. So such measure exists ′ for ϕ = t log |T |. Also T admits a countable Markov partition. (A, m|A,TA,β) is a Gibbs-Markov systems, whenever A belongs to the Markov partition and β is the first return time partition on A which is also a (countable) Markov partition. It is known that a probability-preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov map (Ω, B,µ,T,α) is continued-fraction mixing (exponential ψ-mixing), as stated in the next proposition. A Gibbs-Markov map is called topologically mixing if for n any a,b ∈ α, there is na,b ∈ N such that for every n > na,b, b ⊂ T a. The above examples are all topologically mixing. Proposition 2.5 ([1, Corollary 4.7.8], see also [4]). A probability-preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov map is continued-fraction mixing. That is, there N k−1 exist constants K > 0 and 0 <θ< 1 such that for any n, k ∈ , a ∈ α0 and B ∈B |µ(a ∩ T −n−kB) − µ(a)µ(B)| 6 Kθnµ(a)µ(B). For a ψ-mixing dynamical system whose σ-algebra is generated by a countable partition, one can hope for a Poisson limit theorem around a non-periodic point, as mentioned in the introduction. For example, the following Poisson limit theorem can be obtained from [21, Corollary 1] (see also [26, 23]). Note that in there the authors also obtain error estimates. Theorem 2.6. Given a probability-preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov n−1 map. Suppose x is a non-periodic point and An(x) ∈ α0 is the cylinder set of length n that contains x. Then for any t> 0 and k ∈ N

[t/µ(An(x)]−1 k i t −t lim µ x ∈ Ω: 1A (x) ◦ T (x)= k = e . n→∞  n  k! i=0  X    However, around a periodic point or when An always intersects with its preimages via small iterations, one can see that the error estimates in [21, 19] do not imply n−1 a Poisson limit law. Indeed, when x is a periodic point and An = An(x) ∈ α0 , the limit distribution is compound Poisson as shown in [24]. We note that similar µ|An results hold for the induced measure µn = through the relation revealed in µ(An) [37] between the statistics of successive return times and the statistics of successive hitting times. 6 XUAN ZHANG

Proposition 2.5 can be proved with the following Renyi’s property and transfer operator’s spectral gap property (to be discussed in the next section). Proposition 2.7. (Renyi’s property, [3, Proposition 1.2]) Given a topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov map. There exists a constant M > 0 such that for every N n−1 n n ∈ ,a ∈ α0 , a.e. x ∈ T a, −1 ′ M µ(a) 6 va(x) 6 Mµ(a). A simple corollary is useful to estimate short returns. Corollary 2.8. Given a probability-preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov N n−1 map. There exists a constant M1 > 0 such that for every n ∈ ,a ∈ α0 , k 6 n, −k 1+ 1 µ(a ∩ T a) 6 M1µ(a) 1+n . k−1 Proof. Let r = n−[n/k]k. Let b ∈ α0 be the cylinder set of length k that contains a as a subset. Note that if a ∩ T −ka 6= ∅, a = b ∩ T −kb ∩···∩ T −([n/k]−1)kb ∩ T −[n/k]kT n−ra, a ∩ T −ka = b ∩ T −ka, a ∩ T −ka ⊂ a ∩ T −(n+k−r)T n−ra = a ∩ T −n(T −(k−r)T n−ra). Then it follows from Renyi’s property that there exists a constant M such that µ(a) > M −[n/k]µ(b)[n/k]µ(T n−ra), µ(a ∩ T −ka) 6 Mµ(b)µ(a), µ(a ∩ T −ka) 6 Mµ(a)µ(T n−ra). Raise the second inequality to [n/k]-th power, multiply with the third inequality, then substitute the ﬁrst inequality, one gets µ(a ∩ T −ka)[n/k]+1 6 M [n/k]+1µ(a)[n/k]+1µ(b)[n/k]µ(T n−ra) 6 M 2[n/k]+1µ(a)[n/k]+2. Therefore 2+[n/k] −k 2 2 1+ 1 µ(a ∩ T a) 6 M µ(a) 1+[n/k] 6 M µ(a) 1+n .

3. Transfer operator and perturbation From now on we always assume that (Ω, B,µ,T,α) is a probability-preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov system. In this section we summarize some properties of the widely-used transfer operator. For any partition ρ of Ω, define the Hölder norm subject to ρ of a function f :Ω → R by |f(x) − f(y)| Dρf := sup sup , b∈ρ x,y∈b,x6=y r(x, y) q where sup is taken µ almost everywhere. Denote the usual L -norm by k·kq, 1 6 q 6 ∞. Set kfk∞,ρ := kfk∞ + Dρf. ∞ ∞ Denote by Lρ the set consisting of functions of finite k·k∞,ρ-norm. (Lρ , k·k∞,ρ) is N n n−1 a Banach space. Recall that T α ⊂ σ(α). For every n ∈ , T (α0 )= T α. Fix a A POISSON LIMIT THEOREM FOR GIBBS-MARKOV MAPS 7 partition β such that σ(T α)= σ(β). Define the transfer operator L : L1(µ) → L1(µ) by ′ L(f) := 1b va · f ◦ va. Xb∈β a∈α,TaX ⊃b Since µ is T -invariant, L(1)= 1. L satisfies and is uniquely characterized by:

L(f) · gdµ = f · g ◦ T dµ, ∀f ∈ L1(µ),g ∈ L∞(µ). ZΩ ZΩ We write for simplicity ∞ L := Lβ , k·k := k·k∞,β. As no confusion should appear, we use the same notation k·k for the operator norm on L. On L, the transfer operator L satisﬁes Doeblin-Fortet inequality and spectral gap property as stated in the next proposition. Denote by r(·) the spectral radius of a linear operator. Let r ∈ (0, 1) be the constant in Deﬁnition 2.1 (4). Proposition 3.1. [3, Propositions 1.4, 2.1, Theorem 1.6] There are constants C1, C2 > 0 such that the following statements are true. For all f ∈ L and n ∈ N, n n ||L (f)|| 6 C1(r Dβf + ||f||1).

Suppose ω :Ω → [0, 1] satisﬁes Dαω < ∞. Let Lω(f) := L(ω · f) then n n ||Lω(f)|| 6 (C1 + C2Dαω)(r Dβf + ||f||1).

Furthermore the essential spectral radius ress(L) 6 r and 1 is the simple, unique maximal eigenvalue of L. One can decompose L on L as (1) L = P + N, where P (f)= Ω fdµ is the eigenprojection of L with respect to 1, PN = NP =0 and r(N) < 1. R Following [25], one can investigate the statistics of return times by studying the operator LA(f) := L(1Ac ·f) as a perturbation of L. However in our situation when An has a constant cylindrical length, this perturbation is not asymptotically small under k·k-norm. Take the continued fraction map for example. Recall α = {{a1 = n} : n ∈ N}. The Gauss map sends every element of α onto the whole interval (0, 1),

c so let β = {(0, 1)}. Let An = (0, 1/n) ∈ σ(α). Then kLAn − Lk = kLAn k is of −1 the order of Dβ1An = r for all n, not tending to 0. Usual analytic perturbation theorems are not applicable. Instead as mentioned in the introduction, we use Keller and Liverani’s perturbation theorem to deal with such perturbations that are asymptotically small under a weaker norm. We restate Keller and Liverani’s theorems from [28] as follows.

Theorem 3.2. Let {Ln}n∈N0 be a sequence of bounded linear operators on a Banach space (B, k·k), with a second (semi-)norm n(·) 6 k·k. Let 0 <ρ< 1 and let + τ : N0 → R be a monotone function with limn→∞ τn = 0. Suppose that for some constant C > 0, and for all n, k ∈ N0 and f ∈ B, n k (i) (Ln) 6 C, k k n (ii) kLn(f)k 6 C(ρ kfk + (f)), (iii) n((L0 − Ln)(f)) 6 τnkfk. 8 XUAN ZHANG

Suppose further that ress(L0) 6 ρ and λ0 is the simple, unique maximal eigenvalue ′ of L0 with |λ0| =1. Decompose L0 = λ0P0 + N0 in the form of (1). Let ρ ∈ (ρ, 1) ′ and δ > 0 be small such that {z ∈ C : |z−λ0| 6 δ} is disjoint from {z ∈ C : |z| 6 ρ }. ′ Then there exist n0 ∈ N, η ∈ (0, 1),K > 0 such that for every n > n0, ress(Ln) 6 ρ , Ln has a simple, unique maximal eigenvalue λn and one can decompose Ln = λnPn + Nn in the form of (1) satisfying additionally

(1) |λn − λ0| 6 δ, n η (2) ((Pn − P0)(f)) 6 Kτn kfk for any f ∈ B, (3) kPn(f)k 6 Kn(Pn(f)) for any f ∈ B, k k N (4) kNn k 6 K(1 − δ) for any k ∈ .

4. Main theorem and applications to continued fractions Now we prove the main theorem in this note. We consider a sequence of shrinking sets with bounded lengths. If the sequence converges to a point, it may be a periodic point or a compactiﬁcation point. To some extent, our result complements both the Poisson limit theorem 2.6 for a sequence of cylinder sets with increasing lengths converging to a non-periodic point and the compound Poisson limit theorem for a sequence of cylinder sets with increasing lengths converging to a periodic point.

Theorem 4.1. Given a measure-preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov map. Assume that a sequence of measurable sets {An}n∈N satisﬁes the following conditions. N m−1 N (a) For some m ∈ , An ∈ σ(α0 ) for all n ∈ . −i (b) For all i ∈ N, lim µ(An ∩ T An)/µ(An)=0. n→∞

If nµ(An) converges to a constant t> 0 as n → ∞, then for every k ∈ N0

n−1 k i t −t lim µ x ∈ Ω: 1A ◦ T (x)= k = e . n→∞ n k! ( i=0 )! X k−1 Proof. Let Sn,k = 1An +...+1An ◦T . We will show that the Laplace transform of Sn,n converges to the Laplace transform of the Poisson distribution with parameter −s t, that is, e−sSn,n dµ → e−t(1−e ) as n → ∞ for every s > 0. Fix an arbitrary s > 0. Deﬁne L by R n −s1A Ln(f) := L(e n f), then for all k ∈ N

k k −sSn,k Ln(f)= L (e f).

Set L0 := L. We verify the conditions (i)-(iii) in Theorem 3.2 for operators n −s {Ln}n∈N0 on (L, k·k), a second norm (·)= k·k1, and τn = (1 − e )µ(An). k N It is clear that kLnk1 6 1 for all n, k ∈ 0, so condition (i) is satisﬁed. Because m−1 m−1 An ∈ σ(α0 ), An is a countable union of cylinder sets in α0 . Let r ∈ (0, 1) be −m the constant in Deﬁnition 2.1 (4). So Dα1An = 0 when m = 1, and Dα1An 6 r when m > 2. Now Proposition 3.1 implies a uniform Doeblin-Fortet inequality for Ln: there are constants C1, C2 > 0 such that for all n, k ∈ N0 and f ∈ L,

k −m k kLn(f)k 6 (C1 + C2r )(r kfk + kfk1). A POISSON LIMIT THEOREM FOR GIBBS-MARKOV MAPS 9

This inequality veriﬁes condition (ii). Condition (iii) also holds because

−s1A k(L0 − Ln)(f)k1 = kL((1 − e n ) · f)k1

1 6 (1 − e−s An )|f|dµ = (1 − e−s) |f|dµ ZΩ ZAn −s 6 (1 − e )kfkµ(An)= τnkfk. ′ In addition L0 has a spectral gap as stated in (1). Fix r ∈ (r, 1) and δ > 0 such that {|z −1| 6 δ} is disjoint from {|z| 6 r′}. It follows from Theorem 3.2 that there ′ exist n0 ∈ N, η ∈ (0, 1),K > 0 such that for every n > n0, ress(Ln) 6 r , Ln has a simple, unique maximal eigenvalue λn and one can decompose Ln = λnPn + Nn in the form of (1) satisfying additionally

(1) |λn − 1| 6 η, η (2) |Pn(f) − fdµ|dµ 6 Kµ(An) kfk for any f ∈ L, (3) kP (f)k 6 K |P (f)|dµ for any f ∈ L, R n R n (4) kN kk 6 K(1 − δ)k for any k ∈ N. n R n n −sSn,n Then one has, since Ln(1)= L (e ),

−sSn,n n n n e dµ = Ln(1)dµ = λn Pn(1)dµ + Nn (1)dµ, Z Z Z Z hence lim e−sSn,n dµ = lim λn n→∞ n→∞ n Z whenever the right-hand limit exists. The existence of the limit is implied by the following lemma. Lemma 4.2. 1 − λn lim −s =1. n→∞ (1 − e )µ(An)

Proof. Suppose n > n0. Let fn be an eigenfunction of Ln with repect to λn, then Pn(fn) = fn and Nn(fn) = 0. Note that fndµ 6= 0, otherwise using the above properties (2) and (3) about P , n R 2 η kfnk = kPnfnk 6 K |Pn(fn)|dµ = K Pn(fn) − fndµ dµ 6 K µ(An) kfnk. Z Z Z

This yields a contradiction when n → ∞ . So we can assume that fndµ = 1. Repeat the previous argument to see that R 2 η (1 − K µ(An) )kfnk 6 K.

Hence we can further assume that kfnk is uniformly bounded, say kfnk 6 C for all n. For every k ∈ N,

k k k −sSn,k (2) 1 − λn = (1 − λn) fndµ = (fn − Ln(fn))dµ = (1 − e )fndµ. Z Z Z When k = 1 this equation says

−s 1 − λn = (1 − e ) fndµ, ZAn so

−s −s (3) |λn| = 1 − (1 − e ) fndµ > 1 − (1 − e )Cµ(An). ZAn

10 XUAN ZHANG

In (2) replace k by k +1 to get

k+1 −sSn,k+1 1 − λn = (1 − e )fndµ Z −sSn,k −sSn,k = (1 − e )fndµ + (1 − e )fndµ −k c −k Z(T An) ZT An

−sSn,k −s −sSn,k + (e − e e )fndµ −k ZT An −sSn,k −s −sSn,k = (1 − e )fndµ + (1 − e ) e fndµ −k Z ZT An k −s −sSn,k =1 − λn + (1 − e ) e fndµ. −k ZT An Therefore,

k −s −sSn,k k λn(1 − λn)=(1 − e ) e fn · 1An ◦ T dµ Z −s k −sSn,k = (1 − e ) L (e fn) · 1An dµ Z −s −sSn,k k −sSn,k = (1 − e ) e fndµ + N (e fn) dµ ZAn Z

−s k k −sSn,k = (1 − e ) µ(An) Ln(fn)dµ + N (e fn)dµ Z ZAn

−s k k −sSn,k = (1 − e ) µ(An)λn + N (e fn)dµ . ZAn We obtain that for every k ∈ N

1 − λn 1 (4) =1+ N k(e−sSn,k f )dµ. (1 − e−s)µ(A ) µ(A )λk n n n n ZAn In view of (3) we can choose k = k(n) so that k(n) → ∞ as n → ∞ and that k 1 N |λn| > 3 for large n. Moreover choose ℓ = ℓ(n) ∈ < k(n) so that ℓ(n) → ∞ and ℓµ(An) → 0 when n → ∞. Now the continued-fraction mixing property m−1 (Proposition 2.5) and the assumption An ∈ σ(α0 ) imply that there is a constant C3 > 0 such that ℓ −i 2 µ(An ∩ T An) 6 C3(ℓ − m)µ(An) . i=m+1 X −i Together with the assumption (b) µ(An ∩ T An)= o(µ(An)) for all i ∈ N, we get that ℓ 1 −i lim µ(An ∩ T An)=0. n→∞ µ(A ) n i=1 X Back to (4), by the choice of k, it suﬃces to show

k −sSn,k N (e fn)dµ = o(µ(An)). ZAn Separate it into two parts by k−ℓ e−sSn,k = e−sSn,k−ℓ + e−sSn,k−ℓ (e−sSn,ℓ◦T − 1). A POISSON LIMIT THEOREM FOR GIBBS-MARKOV MAPS 11

The ﬁrst part

k −sSn,k−ℓ ℓ k−ℓ −sSn,k−ℓ N (e fn)dµ 6 K(1 − δ) µ(An)kN (e fn)k ZAn

ℓ k−ℓ −sSn,k−ℓ −sSn,k−ℓ = K(1 − δ) µ(An)kL (e fn) − e fndµk Z ℓ k−ℓ −sSn,k−ℓ = K(1 − δ) µ(An)kLn (fn) − e fndµk

ℓ −m Z 6 K(1 − δ) (C1 + C2r + 1)Cµ(An)= o(µ(An)).

k−ℓ The second part, letting g := e−sSn,k−ℓ (e−sSn,ℓ◦T − 1),

k k N (gfn)dµ = L (gfn)dµ − µ(An) gfndµ ZAn ZAn Z

k = gfn · 1An ◦ T dµ − µ(An) gfndµ Z Z k−ℓ −k k−ℓ 6 2 kfnk∞µ({Sn,ℓ ◦ T 6=0} ∩ T An)+2 µ(An)kfnk∞µ({Sn,ℓ ◦ T 6=0})

k−1 k−1 −k −i −i 6 2Cµ T An ∩ T An +2Cµ(An)µ T An i=[k−ℓ i=[k−ℓ ℓ −i 2 6 2C µ(An ∩ T An)+2Cℓµ(An) = o(µ(An)). i=1 X Hence we get the desired limit.

Back to the proof of Theorem 4.1. As a byproduct of Lemma 4.2, |λn| 6 1 for large n. Then, n −s n −s |λn − (1 − (1 − e )µ(An)) | 6 n · |λn − 1+(1 − e )µ(An)|.

Because nµ(An) → t and because of the lemma, the right-hand side converges to 0, then − n −s n −t(1−e s) lim λn = lim (1 − (1 − e )µ(An)) = e . n→∞ n→∞

In the following situations, assumption (b) can be easily veriﬁed. Corollary 4.3. The Poisson limit theorem holds when

(1) An ∈ σ(α) for all n ∈ N, or N m−1 N (2) for some m ∈ , An ∈ α0 for all n ∈ . Proof. In the ﬁrst situation, assumption (b) can be deduced from continued-fraction mixing. In the second situation, assumption (b) can be deduced from Corollary 2.8.

Remark 4.4. Here is an example when An satisﬁes assumption (a) but not assump- 1 tion (b). Consider the continued fraction map. Let An = [1,n] ∪ [n, 1] ∈ σ(α0). That is, An = {x ∈ (0, 1) : either a1 = 1,a2 = n, or a1 = n,a2 = 1.}. Then −2 −1 µ(An) = O(n ). But An ∩ T An = [1, n, 1] ∪ [n, 1,n] has measure of the order O(n−2) too. 12 XUAN ZHANG

Remark 4.5. ˜ 1 c Applying Theorem 3.2 to Ln(f) := L( An · f), one can again decompose Lñ likewise with a leading eigenvalue λñ. Keller and Liverani’s formula in [29] for escape rate gives 1 − λ˜ lim n =1. n→∞ µ(An) This formula also holds when applying Theorem 3.2 to more general cases, which require that k1An k is uniformly bounded for all n, like in assumption (a), and that only a small portion of {An} will return in short times, like in assumption (b). Consequently, it confirms that the distribution of the first return time tends to an exponential distribution. Note that continued-fraction mixing (or ψ-mixing) is not necessary in this line of proof, whereas a direct calculation of escape rate assuming ψ-mixing but not necessarily spectral gap can be found in [36]. For Ln considered in this note (suited to study successive return times), the same formula in [29] implies that

∞ 1 − λn lim −s =1 − qk, n→∞ (1 − e )µ(An) kX=0 where

1 k qk = lim (L − Ln)L (L − Ln)(1)dµ n→∞ (1 − e−s)µ(A ) n n Z 1 −sSn,k − k = lim e · (2 · 1An − 1T 1A ) ◦ T dµ. n→∞ µ(A ) n n Z It is likely that one can go on to obtain the same Poisson limit theorem by arguments similar to the second half of the proof of Lemma 4.2.

Lastly, we state some applications of Theorem 4.1 to continued fractions. Let 1 1 ((0, 1),µ,T,α) be the continued fraction map, where dµ = log 2 1+x dx, T (x) = {1/x}, and α = {{a1 = n} : n ∈ N}. As seen in Example 2.3, it is a probability- preserving, topologically mixing Gibbs-Markov map. Fix any real number θ > 0. 1 By applying Corollary 4.3 (1) to An = (0, [θn]+1 ) ∈ σ(α), we recover Doeblin’s theorem in the introduction. Note that as mentioned in [27] the Gauss measure can ∞ be replaced by the Lebesgue measure, because |µ(A)−Leb(A)| 6 ǫm for A ∈ σ(αm ), where ǫm → 0 as m → ∞. m−1 Choosing A = 1/m [a , ··· ,a ] ∈ σ(α ), one can show that A n a1,...,am>[(θn) ] 1 m 0 n satisﬁes assumption (b) in Theorem 4.1. Then an extension of Doeblin’s theorem S follows.

Corollary 4.6. For every m, k ∈ N0

lim Leb{x ∈ (0, 1) : there are exactly k m-tuples aiai+1ai+m−1 with all n→∞

1/m 1 1 − 1 a ,...,a > (θn) , 1 6 i 6 n} = e θ log 2 . i i+m−1 (θ log 2)k k!

m−1 Choosing An ∈ α0 such that nµ(An) converges, one can ﬁnd by Corollary 4.3 (2) limit laws for the number of occurrences of pattern An. For example, if one 1/4 1/4 2 chooses An = [[n ], [n ]] ∈ α0 then A POISSON LIMIT THEOREM FOR GIBBS-MARKOV MAPS 13

Corollary 4.7. For every k ∈ N0

1/4 1/4 lim Leb{x ∈ (0, 1) : there are k occurrences of [n ][n ] in [a1,...,an+1]} n→∞ 1 1 − 1 = e log 2 . (log 2)k k!

Acknowledgment Major part of the work appeared in Chapter 3 of the author’s thesis [35]. He thanks his advisor Prof. Manfred Denker for generous help. The author was sup- ported by FAPESP grant #2018/15088-4.

References

[1] Jon Aaronson. An introduction to infinite ergodic theory, volume 50 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1997. 5 [2] Jon Aaronson and Manfred Denker. The Poincaréseries of C \ Z. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 19(1):1–20, 1999. 4 [3] Jon Aaronson and Manfred Denker. Local limit theorems for partial sums of stationary sequences generated by Gibbs-Markov maps. Stoch. Dyn., 1(2):193–237, 2001. 2, 3, 6, 7 [4] Jon Aaronson, Manfred Denker, and Mariusz Urbański. Ergodic theory for Markov fibred systems and parabolic rational maps. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 337(2):495–548, 1993. 5 [5] Miguel Abadi and Nicolas Vergne. Sharp errors for point-wise Poisson approximations in mixing processes. Nonlinearity, 21(12):2871–2885, 2008. 2 [6] Henk Bruin, Mark F. Demers, and Mike Todd. Hitting and escaping statistics: mixing, targets and holes. Adv. Math., 328:1263–1298, 2018. 2 [7] V. Chaumoˆıtre and M. Kupsa. k-limit laws of return and hitting times. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 15(1):73–86, 2006. 2 [8] J.-R. Chazottes and P. Collet. Poisson approximation for the number of visits to balls in non-uniformly hyperbolic dynamical systems. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 33(1):49–80, 2013. 2 [9] Zaqueu Coelho and Pierre Collet. Asymptotic limit law for the close approach of two trajec- tories in expanding maps of the circle. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 99(2):237–250, 1994. 2 [10] I. P. Cornfeld, S. V. Fomin, and Ya. G. Sina˘ı. Ergodic theory, volume 245 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1982. Translated from the Russian by A. B. Sosinski˘ı. 3 [11] Mark F. Demers and Paul Wright. Behaviour of the escape rate function in hyperbolic dynamical systems. Nonlinearity, 25(7):2133–2150, 2012. 2 [12] M. Denker and M. Urbański. Ergodic theory of equilibrium states for rational maps. Nonlin- earity, 4(1):103–134, 1991. 4, 5 [13] Manfred Denker. Remarks on weak limit laws for fractal sets. In Fractal geometry and stochas- tics (Finsterbergen, 1994), volume 37 of Progr. Probab., pages 167–178. Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995. 2 [14] Manfred Denker, Mikhail Gordin, and Anastasya Sharova. A Poisson limit theorem for toral automorphisms. Illinois J. Math., 48(1):1–20, 2004. 2 [15] W. Doeblin. Remarques sur la théorie métrique des fractions continues. Compositio Math., 7:353–371, 1940. 1 [16] Dmitry Dolgopyat. Limit theorems for partially hyperbolic systems. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 356(4):1637–1689 (electronic), 2004. 2 [17] William Feller. An introduction to probability theory and its applications. Vol. I. Third edi- tion. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, 1968. 3 [18] Andrew Ferguson and Mark Pollicott. Escape rates for Gibbs measures. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 32(3):961–988, 2012. 2 [19] N. Haydn and F. Yang. Entry times distribution for mixing systems. J. Stat. Phys., 163(2):374–392, 2016. 2, 5 [20] N. T. A. Haydn. Entry and return times distribution. Dyn. Syst., 28(3):333–353, 2013. 2 14 XUAN ZHANG

[21] N. T. A. Haydn and Y. Psiloyenis. Return times distribution for Markov towers with decay of correlations. Nonlinearity, 27(6):1323–1349, 2014. 5 [22] Nicolai Haydn. Statistical properties of equilibrium states for rational maps. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 20(5):1371–1390, 2000. 2 [23] Nicolai Haydn and Sandro Vaienti. The limiting distribution and error terms for return times of dynamical systems. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 10(3):589–616, 2004. 5 [24] Nicolai Haydn and Sandro Vaienti. The compound Poisson distribution and return times in dynamical systems. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 144(3-4):517–542, 2009. 2, 5 [25] Masaki Hirata. Poisson law for Axiom A diffeomorphisms. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 13(3):533–556, 1993. 1, 2, 7 [26] Masaki Hirata, Benoˆıt Saussol, and Sandro Vaienti. Statistics of return times: a general framework and new applications. Comm. Math. Phys., 206(1):33–55, 1999. 2, 5 [27] Marius Iosifescu. A Poisson law for ψ-mixing sequences establishing the truth of a Doeblin’s statement. Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl., 22(10):1441–1447, 1977. 1, 12 [28] Gerhard Keller and Carlangelo Liverani. Stability of the spectrum for transfer operators. Ann. Scuola Norm. Sup. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4), 28(1):141–152, 1999. 2, 7 [29] Gerhard Keller and Carlangelo Liverani. Rare events, escape rates and quasistationarity: some exact formulae. J. Stat. Phys., 135(3):519–534, 2009. 2, 12 [30] Y. Lacroix. Possible limit laws for entrance times of an ergodic aperiodic dynamical system. Israel J. Math., 132:253–263, 2002. 2 [31] Fran¸coise Pène and Benoˆıt Saussol. Poisson law for some non-uniformly hyperbolic dynamical systems with polynomial rate of mixing. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 36(8):2602–2626, 2016. 2 [32] B. Pitskel′. Poisson limit law for Markov chains. Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 11(3):501– 513, 1991. 1 [33] Ya. G. Sina˘ı. Some mathematical problems in the theory of quantum chaos. Phys. A, 163(1):197–204, 1990. Statistical physics (Rio de Janeiro, 1989). 1 [34] Dennis Sullivan. Conformal dynamical systems. In Geometric dynamics (Rio de Janeiro, 1981), volume 1007 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 725–752. Springer, Berlin, 1983. 5 [35] Xuan Zhang. Studies on the weak convergence of partial sums in Gibbs-Markov dynamical systems. PhD thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 2015. 13 [36] Xuan Zhang. Note on limit distribution of normalized return times and escape rate. Stoch. Dyn., 16(3):1660014, 15, 2016. 12 [37] Roland Zweimüller. The general asymptotic return-time process. Israel J. Math., 212(1):1–36, 2016. 5

Instituto de Matematica´ e Estat´ıstica, Universidade de Sao˜ Paulo Email address: [email protected]