Arxiv:2107.03776V1 [Math.DS] 8 Jul 2021 AO TI,GR RYAD EII OZLZTKA,ADS and GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, CECILIA FROYLAND, GARY ATNIP, JASON .Introduction 1
![Arxiv:2107.03776V1 [Math.DS] 8 Jul 2021 AO TI,GR RYAD EII OZLZTKA,ADS and GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, CECILIA FROYLAND, GARY ATNIP, JASON .Introduction 1](http://data.docslib.org/img/6033376/arxiv-2107-03776v1-math-ds-8-jul-2021-ao-ti-gr-ryad-eii-ozlztka-ads-and-gonz%c3%a1lez-tokman-cecilia-froyland-gary-atnip-jason-introduction-1.jpg)
arXiv:2107.03776v1 [math.DS] 8 Jul 2021 AO TI,GR RYAD EII OZLZTKA,ADS AND GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, CECILIA FROYLAND, GARY ATNIP, JASON .Introduction 1. ..Nntastv ytm n oeigcriterion References covering a and rates systems Acknowledgments escape Non-transitive and systems open 7.4. Random maps potenti intermittent 7.3. contracting Random strongly for conditions 7.2. Sufficient Perron–Frob 7.1. random Examples and correlati theory of ergodic 7. decay Multiplicative exponential and states 6.2. Equilibrium results 6.1. Main measures 6. conformal Equivariant mea conformal 5.2. densities Equivariant and densities equivariant of 5.1. Construction metric projective pot contracting of 5. Contraction strongly and cones invariant 4.1. (Strictly) inequality Lasota–Yorke and 4. estimates Variation estimates 3.2. Infimum estimates 3.1. Basic setting and 3. Notation 2. QIIRU TTSFRNNTASTV ADMOPEN RANDOM NON-TRANSITIVE FOR STATES EQUILIBRIUM Date asadacneto ewe ypnvepnnsadescape and exponents Lyapunov between potenti holes. connection geometric a with dynamica and maps (random) maps intermittent of random formalis examples closed thermodynamic of and and class theory the ergodic of expand multiplicative decay to exponential us with exist allow measures the invariant to linked and are conformal con decompositions inte covering Such closed and literature. and mixing the open as random such of requirements, class transitivity a for states equilibrium Abstract. uy9 2021. 9, July : hswr rvdsrno ernFoeisdecomposition Perron–Frobenius random provides work This N LSDDNMCLSYSTEMS DYNAMICAL CLOSED AND Contents 1 neaduiuns frandom of uniqueness and ence iin,wihaepeaetin prevalent are which ditions, .Apiain nld open include Applications m. vlmp,wtotimposing without maps, rval orltos hs results These correlations. l,nntastv random non-transitive als, als entials ons sures nu decomposition enius ytm mnbeto amenable systems l ae hog random through rates n relative and s NR VAIENTI ANDRO 20 20 19 18 17 16 16 14 11 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 5 5 4 2 2 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
1. Introduction Non-autonomous or random dynamical systems provide flexible mathematical models to analyze a wide range of forced and noisy phenomena. They have been identified as an important direction going forward in the study of chaotic systems [24]. One of the obstacles in the investigation of the long term properties of such systems stems from the difficulty in identifying concrete examples for which the available theoretical results apply. This work uncovers scenarios where ergodic theoretical tools can be used to establish results related to the thermodynamic formalism and decay of correlations for random dynamical systems, without imposing requirements such as transitivity or covering, which are often difficult to verify in this context. For autonomous (time-homogeneous) finite-state Markov chains and systems whose dy- namics can be encoded by them, such as shifts of finite type and systems with a Markov partition, one can use normal forms for reducible matrices [12, Vol. 2] to analyze the dynamics using irreducible components as building blocks. In sharp contrast, there is no available decomposition of non-autonomous (random) systems into transitive or irreducible components. For instance, Buzzi [6, §0.2] noted difficulties in decomposing one-dimensional piecewise expanding random systems into pathwise irreducible components, and hence in the search for decompositions that could play the role of normal forms in this setting. Accord- ingly, the study of decay of correlations and Perron–Frobenius type results in the random setting has so far relied on stronger hypotheses, such as mixing and/or covering conditions [5, 4, 6, 15, 20, 19, 10, 3, 14, 1, 22, 2]. Similar assumptions appear in the investigation of memory loss in time-dependent systems [21, 23, 13, 7]. In this work, we exhibit new examples of random dynamical systems for which invariant measures (relative equilibrium states) with exponential decay of correlations can be con- structed. We do not impose transitivity assumptions – so neither topological mixing nor covering conditions are assumed – but instead require that the random maps and random potentials satisfy a contracting type condition, on average; see Definition 4.2 for details. Naturally, when such results hold, one expects to obtain a one-dimensional top equivariant direction for the (random) transfer operator. Indeed, under mild extra assumptions, we also show that the multiplicative ergodic theorem of Froyland, Lloyd and Quas [11] applies in this setting and yields a random Perron–Frobenius decomposition, providing uniqueness and further information. Our approach builds on the concept of contracting potential, in- troduced in the autonomous setting by Liverani, Saussol and Vaienti [17]. This work may also be regarded as a generalisation, complementary to [2], of the work of Liverani and Maume-Deschamps [16] to the random setting. Furthermore, the novelty of our approach allows us prove results for both open and closed settings at once in a concise manner in contrast to techniques used in [1, 2]. Our main results may be summarized as follows; see §2 for the allowed class of random open (and closed) maps, Definition 4.2 for the notion of strongly contracting potential and §6.1 for precise statements and proofs. For the related random Perron–Frobenius type decomposition, see Theorem 6.6. EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 3
Main Theorem. Let Lω be the transfer operator associated to a random strongly contract- ing potential for a random open (or closed) map (Tω,Hω) ω Ω (or Tω ω Ω), driven by { } ∈ { } ∈ an ergodic, invertible, probability preserving transformation σ : Ω Ω. Then, there exist → equivariant families, qω ω Ω and νω ω Ω, of bounded variation functions and probability { } ∈ { } ∈ measures, respectively, given by L(n) L(n) σ−nω1 Einf( ω ( )) qω = lim and νω( ) = lim · , n L(n) · n L(n) →∞ Einf( σ−nω1) →∞ Einf( ω 1) L + L + such that ωqω = λω−qσω and νω( ) = λω νσω( ω( )), with log λω dm = log λω−dm. The · · R fqωdνω multipliers λω± ω Ω also satisfy (5.2) and (5.7). Define µω by fdµω := . Then, { } ∈ R R νω(qω) fdµ = f T dµ , R σω ◦ ω ω Z Z and µω ω Ω yields the unique relative equilibrium state for the system. Furthermore, there { } ∈ 1 exist 0
1 1 n A function a :Ω R is tempered if for m a.e. ω Ω, lim|n|→∞ n log a(σ ω) =0. Equivalently, for → ∈ n ε|n| | | every ε> 0 there exists Aω > 0 such that for every n N, a(σ ω) Aωe . ∈ ≤ 4 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
2. Notation and setting The following notation will be used throughout the paper. Let I R be an interval. For ⊂ Z I, we denote by Einf (f) the essential infimum of f on Z, with respect to Lebesgue ⊂ Z measure. We also write Einf(f) instead of EinfI (f), and define Einf (f)=0. Similar ∅ conventions apply to EsupZ(f). Let BV be the set of functions of bounded variation on I, with norm f BV := varI (f)+ f . k k k k∞ Let T , T , : I I 1 2 ··· → be an (at most) countable collection of piecewise monotone maps. Let H ,H , I 1 2 ···⊂ be such that for each j N, H I is a (possibly empty) finite union of intervals, called ∈ j ⊂ holes. Assume that for every j N there is at least one full branch of Tj completely 2 ∈ contained in X := I H . Consider potentials ϕ ,ϕ , : I R, with associated weights j \ j 1 2 ··· → of bounded variation g := eϕj : I R , j =1, 2,.... j → + To define a random (open) map, let (Ω, m) be a complete probability space, and σ : (Ω, m) (Ω, m) be an ergodic, invertible, probability preserving transformation, called the → driving system. Let Ω= ∞ Ω be an (at most) countable partition of Ω into measurable ∪j=1 j sets. For each ω Ω , let T = T ,H = H ,X = X ,g = g . These assumptions ensure ∈ j ω j ω j ω j ω j the quantities involved in the definition of strongly contracting potential (Definition 4.2) are measurable. We refer to (T ,H ) (or sometimes T , when H = for m a.e. { ω ω } { ω} ω ∅ ω Ω) as a random open (or closed) map. ∈ (n) (0) (n) For each ω Ω and n N, let Tω := Tσn−1ω Tσω Tω, Tω := Id, and gω := ∈ (n) ∈ ◦···◦ ◦(n) ˚(n) gσn−1ω ...gσωgω. Let Zω be the monotonicity partition of Tω , and Zω be the coarsest n 1 (j) 1 partition of the survivor set X := − (Tω )− (X j ) into intervals, such that for each ω,n ∩j=0 σ ω ˚Z(n) Z(n) ˚Z(n) ˚Z(n) ˚Z(n) Z ω there exists Z′ ω such that Z Z′. We split ω into ω,f and ω,nf , ∈ ∈ ⊂ (n) (n) corresponding to the full and non-full branches of Tω . That is, Z ˚Z if and only |Xω,n ∈ ω,f (n) ˚Z(n) if Tω (Z) = I. A collection of intervals Z1,...,Zk ω,nf is said to be a collection of (n) ∈ (n) contiguous non-full intervals for Tω (or, more precisely of (Tω ,Hω,n), where Hω,n := I X ) if there is no element of ˚Z(n) in between them3; that is, if the convex hull of \ ω,n ω,f k ˚Z(n) (n) ˚Z(n) j=1Zj does not contain any element of ω,f . We denote by bω,f the cardinality of ω,f and ∪ (n) (n) by ξω the largest number of contiguous non-full intervals for Tω .
2 This assumption rules out the possibility of periodicity, and is used to control infima in our arguments. 3 This condition has been considered in [16, §6]. EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 5
The transfer operator for the random (open or closed) map (Tω,Hω) ω Ω with potential 4 { } ∈ log gω ω Ω , acting on f BV is defined by: { } ∈ ∈ 1 L f = 1 (fg ) T − , ω Tω(Z) ω ◦ ω,Z (1) Z ˚Zω X∈ 1 (n) where T − : T (Z) Z is the inverse of T . Its n step iteration, Lω f := L n−1 ω,Z ω → ω|Z σ ω ◦···◦ Lσω Lω, is given by ◦ L(n) 1 (n) n ω f = (n) (fgω ) Tω,Z− , Tω (Z) ◦ (n) Z ˚Zω X∈ n (n) (n) where T − : Tω (Z) Z is the inverse of Tω . ω,Z → |Z 3. Basic estimates The estimates in this section generalize arguments developed in [16]. 3.1. Infimum estimates. A direct estimate yields, for every ω Ω, f BV, and n N, ∈ ∈ ∈ Einf f b(n) var(f) + Einf( f ) . Z | | ≤ ω,f | | Z ˚Z(n) X∈ ω,f By comparing the infimum over Z ˚Z(n) with the infimum over its closest full-branch ∈ ω,nf neighbor, one gets (3.1) Einf f 2ξ(n) var(f)+ Einf f . Z | | ≤ ω Z | | Z ˚Z(n) Z ˚Z(n) ∈Xω,nf X∈ ω,f Furthermore, if f 0, ≥ (3.2) Einf(L(n)f) Einf (g(n)f) Einf (g(n)) Einf f b(n) Einf (g(n)) Einf(f). ω ≥ Z ω ≥ Xω,n ω Z ≥ ω,f Xω,n ω Z ˚Z(n) Z ˚Z(n) X∈ ω,f X∈ ω,f 3.2. Variation estimates and Lasota–Yorke inequality. For every ω Ω, f BV, ∈ ∈ and n N, we have ∈ L(n) 1 (n) n var( ω f) var (n) (fgω ) Tω,Z− . ≤ Tω (Z) ◦ (n) Z ˚Zω X∈ (n) For each Z ˚Zω we have ∈ 1 (n) n (n) (n) var (n) (fgω ) Tω,Z− varZ (fgω ) + 2 EsupZ fgω Tω (Z) ◦ ≤ 3 var (fg(n)) + 2 Einf fg(n) ≤ Z ω Z ω (n) (n) (n) (3.3) 3 gω varZ (f) + 3 Esup Z f varZ (gω )+2 gω EinfZ f . ≤ ∞ | | ∞ | |
4 In the sequel, we will exclude the sub-index ω Ω from the notation, and write e.g. log gω . ∈ { } 6 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
An inductive argument starting from the bound var(fh) var(f) h + var(h) f , and (n) ≤ k k∞ k k∞ considering that Tω is monotonic on Z, yields n 1 − (n) (n) var(gσj ω) varZ(gω ) gω , ≤k k∞ g j j=0 σ ω X k k∞ var (n) n 1 n 1 (gσj ω) where gω := − g j . Let S˜n,ω(g) := − . Therefore, (3.3) yields j=0 σ ω j=0 g j ∞ k k∞ k k∞ k σ ωk Q1 (n) n P ˜ (n) var T (n)(Z) (fgω ) Tω,Z− 3+3Sn,ω(g) gω varZ (f) ω ◦ ≤ k k∞ (n) + 2+3S˜n,ω(g) gω EinfZ f . k k∞ | | Thus, L(n) ˜ (n) var( ω f) 3+3Sn,ω(g) gω var(f) ≤ k k∞ (n) + 2+3S˜n,ω(g) gω EinfZ f + EinfZ f . k k∞ | | | | Z ˚Z(n) Z ˚Z(n) X∈ ω,f ∈Xω,nf Grouping as in (3.1), one gets L(n) ˜ (n) (n) var( ω f) 3+3Sn,ω(g) (1+2ξω ) gω var(f) ≤ k k∞ ˜ (n) (n) + 2+3Sn,ω(g) (1+2ξω ) gω EinfZ f . k k∞ | | Z Z(n) X∈ ω,f Furthermore, if f 0, (3.2) implies ≥ L(n) L(n) ˜ (n) (n) Einf( ω f) (3.4) var( ω f) 3+3Sn,ω(g) (1+2ξω ) gω var(f)+ (n) . ≤ k k∞ EinfXω,n (gω )! 4. (Strictly) invariant cones and strongly contracting potentials Given a> 0, we consider the cones C = f BV : f > 0, var(f) a Einf(f) BV. a { ∈ ≤ } ⊂ This is a positive, convex cone with non-empty interior. Also, C 0 is closed. Let a ∪{ } a be the partial order induced by Ca. That is, f a g iff f g Ca 0 . Then, (BV, a) 5 − ∈ ∪{ } is integrally closed . In addition, every f BV may be written as f = f f such that ∈ 1 − 2 f , f C , for instance, by choosing f = f + c, f = c for sufficiently large c> 0. 1 2 ∈ a 1 2 The inequalities (3.2) and (3.4) yield the following.
5 (V, ) is integrally closed if for every αn α R, f,g V such that 0 f,g and αnf g, αf g. → ∈ ∈ EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 7
(n) Lemma 4.1. If f C and n N, then Lω f C ′ , with ∈ a ∈ ∈ a (n) ˜ (n) gω a (4.1) a′ = 3+3Sn,ω(g) (1+2ξω ) k k∞ (n) (n) +1 =: cω,na + dω,n. EinfXω,n (gω ) bω,f ! The next definition will be key for our arguments, as it allows for the construction of an invariant family of random cones, using ideas going back to Kifer [15]; see also [22].
Definition 4.2. We say log gω is a (random) strongly contracting potential for the ran- { } var dom (open or closed) map (T ,H ) if log #˚Z , log g , log Einf(g ), (gω) L1(m) ω ω ω ω ω gω ∞ { } k k∞ k k ∈ and there exists n > 0 such that log cω,n∗ dm < 0, where cω,n is defined in (4.1). ∗ Remark 4.3. This condition is relatedR to, but more restrictive than, the definitions of contracting potential in [17] (autonomous setting) and [1, Definition 2.15], [2, (Q1)] (random setting). On the other hand, [17, 1, 2] also require a covering condition, which is not required in this work. In [22], the authors investigate random (closed) non-uniformly expanding C1 maps with C1 potentials satisfying a contracting-like condition. In Remark 7.4, we show that, in the one-dimensional setting, this condition is more restrictive than that of Definition 4.2. Lemma 4.4. Assume log g is a random strongly contracting potential for the random { ω} (open or closed) map (Tω,Hω) . Then, there exists n N, 0 <γ< 1 and a family of C { } L(n∗) ∗ ∈ L(n∗)C C cones ( aω )ω Ω which is invariant under ω and satisfies ω aω γa n∗ . Further- ∈ ⊂ σ ω more aω may be chosen as in (4.2), and therefore it may be assumed to be tempered.
Proof. The hypotheses ensure there exists n N such that log cω,n∗ dm < 0, where cω,n∗ is ∗ ∈ defined in (4.1). Thus, one can find 0 <γ< 1 such that log c ∗ d m =: logγ ˜ < log γ < 0. R ω,n Then, the twisted cohomological equation γa n∗ = c ∗ a + d ∗ has a measurable, m- σ ω ω,nR ω ω,n almost surely finite solution given by j ∞ j 1 − − − (4.2) aω = γ− − dσ j 1ω,n∗ cσ kω,n∗ , j=0 k X Y=1 0 (n∗) −k L C C where, for convenience, we let Πk=1cσ ω,n∗ := 1. Thus, ω aω γaσn∗ ω . (n) (n) n 1 ⊂ Notice that b ,ξω − #˚Z j . Thus, the fact that a is tempered is a consequence ω,f ≤ j=0 σ ω ω of the integrability assumptions in Definition 4.2, combined with sub-multiplicativity of (n) Q 1/ Einf(gω ). Indeed, these imply that dω,n∗ is log-integrable, where dω,n∗ is defined in − − εj (4.1). Hence, there is a tempered measurable function Dω such that dσ j 1ω,n∗ Dωe , 2ε ≤ with ε> 0 satisfying e γ<γ˜ . Similarly, there is a tempered measurable function Cω such j jε j 2ε 1 that c −k C e γ˜ . Therefore, a C D γ e γ˜ − is tempered. k=1 σ ω,n∗ ≤ ω ω ≤ ω ω − 4.1. ContractionQ of projective metric. In the setting of Lemma 4.4, let ω be the C C partial order induced by aω . That is, f ω g iff f g aω 0 . Let Θω be the Hilbert C − ∈ ∪{ } (projective) pseudo metric on aω , given by
ρω(f, h) Θω(f, h) := log , τω(f, h) 8 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
where f,g C , τ (f, h) := sup λ> 0 : λf h and ρ (f, h) := inf µ> 0 : µf h ; ∈ aω ω { ω } ω { ω } the distance is infinite if the numerator is or the denominator is 0. ∞ Lemma 4.5. Assume 0 <γ< 1 and f C . Then, ∈ γaω 1+ γ(a + 1) (4.3) Θ (f, 1) log ω =: ∆ /2. ω ≤ 1 γ ω − Thus, the diameter of C as a subset of C is at most ∆ < . γaω aω ω ∞ Proof. Let f C . First, λ f if and only if λ Einf(f) and var(f) = var(f ∈ γaω ω ≤ − λ) a Einf(f λ). This happens if λ (1 γ) Einf f. Also, f µ if and only if ≤ ω − ≤ − ω f µ and var(f) = var(µ f) aω Einf(µ f). Since var(f) γaω Einf(f) and k k∞ ≤ − ≤ − ≤ f (1 + γaω) Einf(f), this happens if µ (γ +1+ γaω) Einf(f). Thus, we conclude ∞ k k ≤ 1+γ(aω +1) ≥ that Θω(f, 1) log 1 γ , as claimed. ≤ − Lemma 4.6. Under the hypotheses of Lemma 4.4, there exists 0 <ϑ< 1 such that for every k 0, and m a.e. ω Ω, ≥ ∈ n∗l n∗(l+k) kn∗ l (4.4) Θ (L − f, L − h) Θ −ln∗ (f, L − h)ϑ , ω σ n∗lω σ n∗(l+k)ω ≤ σ ω σ kn∗ ω C C for every sufficiently large l (depending on ω), every f a − and every h a − . ∈ σ ln∗ ω ∈ σ n∗(l+k)ω
(n∗) L C − C Proof. Lemma 4.4 implies −n∗l a − ,σ n∗lω γa − − and Lemma 4.5 implies σ ω σ n∗lω ⊂ σ n∗(l 1)ω L(n∗) C diam −n∗l a − ∆ −n∗(l−1) , where ∆ω is as in (4.3). Let ε > 0 and D R be σ ω σ n∗lω ≤ σ ω ∈ such that m( ω Ω : ∆ω D ) > 1 ε/n . Recall the projective metric is weakly { (n∈∗) ≤ } − ∗ contracted by Lω for m a.e. ω Ω, and, once the diameter of the image is finite, it is ∈ D strictly contracted by a factor of tanh( 4 ) whenever ∆ω < D. Hence, by ergodicity of σ, D 1 ε (4.4) holds for sufficiently large l, provided ϑ> (tanh( 4 )) − . Remark 4.7. For simplicity and clarity of presentation, we assume from now on that
n =1. ∗ [1, 2] address the possibility of n > 1 in a related setting. ∗
5. Construction of equivariant densities and conformal measures
Note that the norm f is compatible with ω. That is, for all f, h BV , if f ω k k∞ C ∈ − h ω f then h f . Also, the function Einf : aω R+ is homogeneous and ω k k∞ ≤ k k∞ → preserving. Hence, as in [17, Lemma 2.2], for every f, h C such that Einf f = Einf h> 0, ∈ aω we have
(5.1) f h (eΘω(f,h) 1) min( f , h ). k − k∞ ≤ − k k∞ k k∞ EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 9
5.1. Equivariant densities. In this section, we show the following.
Lemma 5.1. Assume log g is a strongly contracting potential for the random (open or { ω} closed) map (T ,H ) , and a is as in (4.2). Then, { ω ω } ω L(n) f C σ−nω (i) For each f 1 the sequence (n) is Cauchy with respect to . Hence, Einf(L f) ∈ σ−nω k·k∞ L(n) f f σ−nω f the following limit exists: q := limn n . Furthermore, Einf(q ) = ω Einf(L( ) f) ω →∞ σ−nω f L f f f f L f 1 and var(qω) γaω. In addition, ωqω = λωqσω, with λω = Einf( ωqω). ≤f f (ii) The functions qω and multipliers λω are independent of f. Call them qω and λω−, L respectively. Then, ωqω = λω−qσω,
(n) (n+1) L −n 1 Einf(L −n 1) σ ω σ ω L (5.2) qω = lim ,λω− = lim = Einf( ωqω). n L(n) n L(n) →∞ Einf( σ−nω1) →∞ Einf( σ−nω1) C C Proof. To show (i), first note that (4.2) implies aω 1. Thus, 1 aω for m a.e. ω Ω. L(n) f ≥ ⊂ ∈ σ−nω Let fn := n . Using (5.1), we have, for m > n 1, Einf(L( ) f) σ−nω ≥
Θω(fn,fm) (5.3) fn fm (e 1) fn . k − k∞ ≤ − k k∞ C Since fn γaω and Einf fn =1, then fn 1+ γaω. On the other hand, by (4.4), for ∈ k k∞n ≤ sufficiently large n, Θ (f , f ) ∆ −n+1 ϑ , where ∆ is as in (4.3) and ϑ < 1 is as in ω n m ≤ σ ω ω Lemma 4.6. Since a is tempered, so is ∆ , and (5.3) tends to 0 exponentially as n . ω ω →∞ Hence, the following limit exists, in L∞. L(n) f σ−nωf qω := lim . n L(n) →∞ Einf( σ−nωf) Also, Einf(qf )=1 and var(qf ) lim sup var(f ) γa . In addition, ω ω ≤ n ≤ ω (n+1) (n+1) (n+1) L −n f Einf(L −n f) Einf(L −n f) L f σ ω σ ω f σ ω f f (5.4) ωqω = lim = qσω lim =: λωqσω. n L(n+1) L(n) n L(n) →∞ Einf( σ−nω f) Einf( σ−nωf) →∞ Einf( σ−nωf) f f L f The normalization of qω implies that λω = Einf( ωqω). To show (ii), we show there exists q BV such that q = qf for every f C . Indeed, ω ∈ ω ω ∈ 1 for f, h C we have, for every n N, ∈ 1 ∈ f h L(n) f L(n) h f h Θω(qω,qω) f Θω( −n q −n , −n q −n ) f (5.5) qω qω (e 1) qω (e σ ω σ ω σ ω σ ω 1) qω . k − k∞ ≤ − k k∞ ≤ − k k∞ (n) f (n) L L h − n 1 f By (4.4), Θω( −n q −n , −n qσ−nω) ∆σ n+1ωϑ − for sufficiently large n, and qω σ ω σ ω σ ω ≤ k k∞ ≤ 1+ γaω. Using once again that ∆ω is tempered, we conclude that the RHS of (5.5) tends f h f exponentially fast to 0 as n . Thus, qω = qω =: qω. Hence, (5.4) implies that λω is → ∞ also independent of f, call it λω−. Thus, (5.2) holds. 10 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
5.2. Equivariant conformal measures. In this section, we show the following.
Lemma 5.2. Assume log gω is a strongly contracting potential for the random (open or { } L(n) C Einf( ω f) closed) map (Tω,Hω) . Then, for each f 1, the sequence L(n) is Cauchy. Its { } ∈ Einf( ω 1) limit, (n) Einf(Lω f) (5.6) νω(f) := lim , n (n) →∞ Einf(Lω 1) defines a positive linear functional which can be extended by linearity to BV , and to a non-atomic probability measure with support contained in Xω. Furthermore, νω satisfies L + νσω( ωf)= λω νω(f), where L(n+1) + Einf( ω 1) L (5.7) λω = lim = νσω( ω1). n (n) →∞ Einf(Lσω 1)
Proof. To show the sequence is Cauchy, it suffices to show that there exists Cω > 0 such that for every f C , ∈ 1 L(n+k) ,(k) n Einf( ω f) ,(k) n −n −n (5.8) λσ ω (1 Cωr ) (n) λσ ω (1 + Cωr ), − ≤ Einf(Lω f) ≤
,(k) − where λω := λω−λσω− ...λσ−k−1ω, λω− > 0 is as in (5.2) and ϑ
For the final claim, we have (n+1) Einf(Lω f) νσω(Lωf) = lim n (n) →∞ Einf(Lσω 1) (n+1) (n+1) Einf(Lω f) Einf(Lω 1) = lim = νω(f)νσω(Lω1). n (n+1) (n) →∞ Einf(Lω 1) Einf(Lσω 1)
Remark 5.3. The construction of conformal measures here may be regarded as a random version of that in [17]. On the other hand, the densities constructed in [17] differ from ours in the normalisation. If we denote their densities by q˜ω, they are normalised so that νω(˜qω)=1. As it can be deduced from the upcoming (6.4), this choice ensures that their ˜ ˜ + corresponding multipliers, λω, satisfy λω = λω . 6. Main results 6.1. Equilibrium states and exponential decay of correlations. In this section we show the following.
Theorem 6.1. Assume log gω =: ϕω is a strongly contracting potential for the random { } 6 (open or closed) map (Tω,Hω) . Let λω±, qω and νω and be as in §5.1 and §5.2. Then , + { } R fqωdνω log λ dm = log λ−dm =: λ . Define the probability measures µ by fdµ := . ω ω 1 ω ω νω(qω) Then, R R R (6.1) fdµ = f T dµ . σω ◦ ω ω Z Z Furthermore, there exist a tempered C > 0 and 0
Remark 6.2. The quantity λ1 in Theorem 6.1 is called the maximal Lyapunov exponent of the cocycle generated by L in the context of multiplicative ergodic theory; and the { ω} expected pressure, denoted by EP (ϕ), in the thermodynamic formalism approach. The proof of Theorem 6.6 will show that the second Lyapunov exponent of the cocycle satisfies λ tanh( D ), with the notation of Lemma 4.6. This bound is related to the upper bound 2 ≤ 4 of [14].
6 1 (n) We will show in Theorem 6.6 that λ = limn log Lω BV for m a.e. ω Ω. 1 →∞ n k k ∈ 12 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
We extend the notion of invariant measures corresponding to punctured potentials in- PH troduced in [8], to the random setting. Let T,m(I) denote the collection of T -invariant probability measures η on Ω I with marginal m on Ω, such that its disintegration η × { ω} satisfies η (H )=0 for m a.e. ω Ω. ω ω ∈ Definition 6.3. We say that a measure η PH (I) is a relative equilibrium state for the ∈ T,m random map (T ,H ) with potential ϕ if { ω ω } { ω}
EP (ϕ)= hη(T )+ ϕ dη, Ω I Z × where hη(T ) denotes the entropy of T with respect to η. The proof of the next result follows similarly to the proof of Theorem 2.23 in [1] (see also Remark 2.24, Lemma 12.2 and Lemma 12.3). Theorem 6.4. Assume log g =: ϕ is a strongly contracting potential for the random { ω ω} (open or closed) map (T ,H ) . Then, the random measure µ PH (I) with disinte- { ω ω } ∈ T,m gration µ produced in Theorem 6.1 is the unique relative equilibrium state for ϕ . It { ω} { ω} satisfies the following variational principle:
λ1 = EP (ϕ)= hµ(T )+ ϕdµ = sup hη(T )+ ϕ dη. Ω I η PH (I) Ω I Z × ∈ T,m Z × Remark 6.5. The same conclusions hold for the random invariant measures µ in the { ω} random open setting of [2].
+ Proof of Theorem 6.1. To show log λ dm = log λ−dm, we prove that for m a.e. ω Ω, ω ω ∈ ν (q )λ+ (6.4) R ω ω ωR =1. νσω(qσω)λω− Indeed, L(n) L(n 1) Einf( ω qω) λω− Einf( σω− qσω) λω−νσω(qσω) νω(qω) = lim = lim = . n (n) n (n 1) + →∞ Einf(Lω 1) →∞ Einf(Lσω− (Lω1)) λω Next we show (6.1). In view of Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2, 1 1 fdµ = f q dν = f L (q )dν σω ν (q ) · σω σω ν (q )λ · ω ω σω Z σω σω Z σω σω ω− Z 1 λ+ = L (f T q )dν = ω f T q dν ν (q )λ ω ◦ ω · ω σω ν (q )λ ◦ ω · ω ω σω σω ω− Z σω σω ω− Z ν (q )λ+ = ω ω ω f T dµ . ν (q )λ ◦ ω ω σω σω ω− Z Then, (6.1) follows from (6.4).
−n C For the second part of the lemma, notice that for every h BV , (h+ch)qσ ω √γaσ−nω 1+2√γ ∈ ∈ for ch = √γ γ h BV . This follows from basic properties of variation, and the fact that − k k − C qσ nω γa − . Furthermore, the invariance property (6.1) implies that the left hand side ∈ σ nω EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 13
of (6.2) is unchanged if h is replaced by h + c for any c R. In the case c = c , the ∈ h corresponding right hand side changes in that h BV must be replaced by h BV + ch 1+2√γ k k k k 7 ≤ 1+ √γ γ h BV . Thus, to show (6.2) we will assume, without loss of generality , that − k k − C hqσ nω γa − . ∈ √ σ nω Using Lemma 5.2 repeatedly, and (6.4) in the last step yields
(n) 1 (n) − − − µσ nω(f Tσ−nω h)= f Tσ−nω hqσ nωdνσ nω ◦ · ν −n (q −n ) ◦ · σ ω σ ω Z 1 (n) (n) L −n = +,(n) σ−nω(f Tσ−nω hqσ ω)dνω − − ◦ · νσ nω(qσ nω)λσ−nω (6.5) Z 1 (n) L −n = +,(n) f σ−nω(hqσ ω)dνω − − ν n (q n )λ −n · σ ω σ ω σ ω Z 1 (n) L −n = ,(n) f σ−nω(hqσ ω)dνω. − · λσ−nωνω(qω) Z On the other hand, (n+k) − − L − νσ nω(hqσ nω) Einf( σ−nω (hqσ nω)) −n µσ ω(h)= = lim (n+k) −n −n k L − νσ ω(qσ ω) Einf( −n (qσ nω)) (6.6) →∞ σ ω (n) (n) L − L − νω( σ−nω(hqσ nω)) νω( σ−nω(hqσ nω)) = (n) = ,(n) . L −n − νω( σ−nω(qσ ω)) λσ−nωνω(qω) Combining (6.5) and (6.6), we get (6.7) (n) − − µ n (f T −n h) µ (f)µ n (h) | σ ω ◦ σ ω · − ω σ ω | (n) (n) (n) − − − ν f L −n (hq n ) µ (f)L −n (hq n ) ν L −n (hq n )(f µ (f)) ω · σ ω σ ω − ω σ ω σ ω ω σ ω σ ω − ω = ,(n) = ,(n) − − λσ−nωνω(qω) λσ−nωνω(qω) (n) L − Einf( σ−nω(hqσ nω)) νω qω(f µω(f)) ,(n) − ≤ − λσ−nων ω(q ω) (n) (n) L −n L −n 3 qω −n (hqσ ω) Einf( −n (hqσ ω))qω f L1(νω) k k∞ σ ω − σ ω k k + ,(n) ∞ , λ−−n νω(qω) σ ω
where we have used that νω(f µω(f)) 3 qω f L1(νω) in the last line. Since νω qω(f | − | ≤ k k∞k k − µ (f)) =0, it only remains to bound the last term. Lemma 4.6 and Lemma 5.1 show that ω for sufficiently large n N, ∈ − (n) (n) n 1+2√γaσ nω n L − L − − − − Θω( −n (hqσ nω), −n (qσ nω)) Θσ nω(hqσ nω, qσ nω)ϑ log ϑ . σ ω σ ω ≤ ≤ 1 √γ − 7 However, we should keep this assumption in mind at the end of the proof, where apparently only h is relevant, and not h BV. k k∞ k k 14 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
where (4.3) has been used in the final step. Combining with (5.1) yields
(n) (n) − − L −n (hq n ) Einf(L −n (hq n ))q σ ω σ ω − σ ω σ ω ω ∞ − hq − ,q − ϑn (n) Θσ nω( σ nω σ nω) L − (e 1 Einf( −n (hqσ nω)) qω . ≤ − σ ω k k∞ Hence, using the elementary estimate ex 1 3x for 0 x 1, (6.7) implies that for | − | ≤ ≤ ≤ sufficiently large n, (6.8) (n) − − µ n (f T −n h) µ (f)µ n (h) | σ ω ◦ σ ω · − ω σ ω | 1+2√γaσ−nω n (n) 2 L − −n 1 9 log 1 √γ ϑ Einf( σ nω(hqσ ω)) qω f L (νω) − k k∞k k ,(n) ≤ − λσ−nωνω(qω) − 2 2 1+2√γaσ nω qω n qω n − 9 log k k∞ f L1(νω) h ϑ =: Cσ′ nω k k∞ f L1(νω) h ϑ . ≤ 1 √γ νω(qω)k k k k∞ νω(qω)k k k k∞ − where in the last inequality we have used the fact that (n) (n) ,(n) L − L − Einf( −n (hqσ nω)) h Einf −n (qσ nω)= h λ−−n . σ ω ≤k k∞ σ ω k k∞ σ ω Since aω is tempered, Cω′ is tempered and since νω(qω) 1 and by Lemma 5.1, qω ≥ k k∞ ≤ 1+ γaω, (6.2) holds for any r > ϑ, with ϑ as in Lemma 4.6, and some tempered Cω. The proof of (6.3) follows from replacing ω with σnω in (6.8), and using temperedness. 6.2. Multiplicative ergodic theory and random Perron–Frobenius decomposi- tion. Under mild extra assumptions, the multiplicative ergodic theorem of [11] applies to cocycles of random maps with strongly contracting potentials, providing uniqueness of the from Theorem 6.1. Theorem 6.6. Assume log g is a strongly contracting potential for the random (open { ω} or closed) map (T ,H ) . In addition, suppose Ω is a Borel subset of a separable complete { ω ω } metric space, m is a Borel probability measure and σ is a homeomorphism. Then, there is a unique, measurable random Perron–Frobenius type decomposition for the cocycle generated by L . That is, for m a.e. ω Ω, there exists a unique (measurable) tuple (ϕ , ν ,λ ) { ω} ∈ ω ω ω with ϕ BV, ν BV∗, the dual space of BV, and λ C 0 such that ω ∈ ω ∈ ω ∈ \{ } (6.9) νω(1) = 1, Lω(ϕω)= λωϕσω and νσω(Lω(f)) = λωνω(f),
for all f BV, which also satisfies the following: Let Qω : BV BV be defined by 1L ∈ → λω− ω(f)= νω(f)ϕσω + Qω(f). Then,
1 (n) (6.10) Qω(ϕω)=0, lim log Qω BV < 0 and νσω(Qω(f))=0, n →∞ n k k (n) for all f BV, where Qω := Q n−1 Q Q . ∈ σ ω ◦···◦ σω ◦ ω Furthermore,
1 L(n) 1 L(n) (6.11) lim log Einf( ω 1) = log λωdm = lim log ω BV, for m a.e. ω Ω. n n n n k k ∈ →∞ Z →∞ EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 15
Proof of Theorem 6.6. Let ω Ω. Connecting with the notation of §5, let λ = λ+ and ∈ ω ω ϕω = qω/νω(qω). Then, the only condition in (6.9) and (6.10) that is not straightforward 1 (n) to derive from Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2 is limn log Qω BV < 0. To show this, we →∞ n k k first observe, by induction, that (n) (n) 1 (n) (n) 1 (n) (6.12) Q (f)=(λ )− L (f ν (f)ϕ )=(λ )− L (f) ν (f)ϕ n . ω ω ω − ω ω ω ω − ω σ ω Next, using the notation of Lemma 4.4 and Theorem 6.1, assume f C , and let h = ∈ √γ n νσ−nω(qσ−nω)f . Then, h q −n f . Also, h q −n = ν −n (q −n )f C q −n n σ ω n σ ω σ ω σ ω √γ C σ ω k k∞ ≤ k k∞k k∞ ∈ ⊂ √γaσ−nω . Recalling (6.4), and writing the RHS of (6.7) with the choice (h, f)=(hn, 1), yields, as in (6.8), (6.13) (n) (n) − − L −n (h q n ) Einf(L −n (h q n ))q σ ω n σ ω − σ ω n σ ω ω ,(n) ∞ − λσ−nωνω(qω) 1 (n) (n) (n) n n − L L − = λσ−nω σ−nω(f) Einf( σ−nω(f))qω Cω hn ϑ Cω qσ nω ϑ f . − ∞ ≤ k k∞ ≤ k k∞ k k∞ Observe that L(n) L(n) (n) (n) Einf( −n (f)) −n (f) 1 − σ ω σ ω (λ −n )− Einf(L −n (f))q ν n (f)ϕ = ν q ϕ . σ ω σ ω ω− σ ω ω (n) ω ω − L(n) ω λσ−nω Einf( σ−nω(f))!
L(n) (f) σ−nω n Note also that for any r > ϑ there exists Dω > 0 such that qω L(n) Dωr , − Einf( −n (f)) ≤ σ ω (n) L(n) L(n) ∞ by (5.3). Recalling that λσ−nω = νω( σ−nω(1)) Einf( σ−nω (1)), we get ≥ (n) (n) n 1 L − (6.14) (λ −n )− Einf( −n (f))qω νσ nω(f)ϕω Dω ϕω r f . k σ ω σ ω − k∞ ≤ k k∞ k k∞ The triangle inequality applied to (6.13) and (6.14), combined with (6.12), shows that 1 (n) limn log Q −n f < 0. →∞ n k σ ω k∞ f 1 L(n) Since the limit in Lemma 5.1(i) satisfies qω BV, then limn log −n f BV = →∞ n σ ω 1 (n) 1 (n∈) k k limn log Einf(L −n f) = limn log L −n f . Thus, (6.12) and the previous →∞ n σ ω →∞ n k σ ω k∞ paragraph yield, for every f C , ∈ √γ 1 (n) 1 (n) (6.15) lim log Q −n f BV = lim log Q −n f < 0. n σ ω n σ ω ∞ →∞ n k k →∞ n k k Since every f BV may be written as f = f f such that f C , and the ∈ 1 − 2 i ∈ √γ growth rate of a sum is bounded above by the largest of the terms’ growth rates, then 1 (n) 1 (n) limn log Q −n f < 0 holds for every f BV. Thus, limn log Q −n BV < 0. →∞ n σ ω ∞ →∞ n σ ω k k ∈ 1k k(n) Finally, Kingman’s sub-additive ergodic theorem implies that limn log Qω BV = →∞ n 1 (n) 1 (n) k k limn log Q −n BV, so limn log Qω BV < 0, as claimed. In fact, our arguments →∞ n σ ω →∞ n k 1 k (n) k k D show that limn log Qω BV log ϑ, for any ϑ> tanh( ), as in Lemma 4.6. →∞ n k k ≤ 4 The multiplicative ergodic theorem [11] ensures uniqueness of a (measurable) equivariant splitting, which in the present context translates into uniqueness of the tuple (ϕω, νω,λω). 16 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI
1 (n) Furthermore, the theorem shows that log λωdm = limn log Lω BV, for m a.e. ω →∞ n k k ∈ Ω. R 7. Examples 7.1. Sufficient conditions for strongly contracting potentials. In this section, we present conditions to ensure a random potential is strongly contracting. Assume
var(gω) 1 log #˚Zω, log gω , log Einf(gω), L (m). k k∞ gω ∈ k k∞ (n) Since 1/ Einf(gω,n) and 1/bω,f are sub-multiplicative, Kingman’s subadditive ergodic theo- rem implies that the following limits exist and are m-a.e. constant,
1 (n) 1 (n) ϕ− := lim log(1/ Einf (g )), β := lim log b . − n Xω,n ω f n ω,f In addition, they coincide with the limits of the, respectively, decreasing and increasing sequences
1 (n) 1 (n) ϕn− := log EinfXω,n (gω )dm , βf,n := log bω,f dm . − −n n N n n N Z ∈ Z ∈ (n) + Furthermore, gω is multiplicative, so by Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem, the limit ϕ := ∞ 1 (nk) k ˜ lim n log gω exists, and is m-a.e. equal to log gω dm. Recalling that Sn,ω(g) = var ∞ ∞ n 1 (kg j k) k1 k − σ ω , Birkhoff’s ergodic theorem implies lim log(1 + S˜ (g))=0. j=0 g j ∞ n n,ω k σ ωk R (n) PThe following bound on ξω follows from a random version of [16, Lemma 6.3]. (n) Proposition 7.1 ([2]). The following inequality holds for ξω , the largest number of con- (n) tiguous non-full intervals for Tω : n 1 − (n) (1) ξ n (ξ j + 2). ω ≤ σ ω j=0 Y Synthetizing the previous discussion, we get the following.
var(gω) 1 Example 7.2. Assume log #˚Zω, log gω , log Einf(gω), L (m). Then, log gω is k k∞ gω ∞ ∈ { } a random strongly contracting potential for the random (opek k n or closed) map (T ,H ) { ω ω } if any of the following conditions hold: (1) Case n =1: ∗ var(gω) (1) log gω log Einf(gω) + log(3) + log 1+ + log(1 + 2ξω ) log bω,f dm < 0. k k∞ − gω − Z k k∞ (1) (2) Either log gω log Einf(gω) + log(2 + ξω ) log bω,f dm < 0; or, slightly more k k∞ − − generally, R (1) log gω dm ϕ− + log(2 + ξω )dm βf < 0. k k∞ − − Z Z EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 17
(n) n (3) There exist K,ξ 1 such that ξω Kξ for m a.e. ω Ω and every n N, and ≥ ≤ ∈ ∈
log gω log Einf(gω)dm + log ξ βf < 0. k k∞ − − Z Remark 7.3. Roughly speaking, Example 7.2(1) corresponds to having, on average, po- tentials with small logarithmic amplitude and controlled variation, and open maps with few contiguous non-full branches and lots of full branches. For constant potentials with no (pair of) contiguous non-full branches, this condition simplifies to log bω,f dm > log(9). Remark 7.4. Example 7.2(3) allows us to compare our setting withR the one-dimensional 1 1 setting of [22], which deals with C potentials ϕω = log gω and C local diffeomorphisms Tω satisfying a condition called (P). In that setting, the maps do not have discontinuities, so (n) ξω =0, and the condition in Example 7.2(3) reduces to ϕω Einf(ϕω)dm βf < 0. k k∞ − − Condition (P) may be written as ϕω Einf(ϕω) + log(1 + Dϕω diam(I))dm < Aω k k∞ − R 1 k k∞ log dm, where, in the notation of [22], Aω = σω− pω + Lωqω 1. Since βf − bω,f R ≥ ≥ logR bω,f dm, the notion of strongly contracting potential is more general than condition (P) in this case. R 7.2. Random intermittent maps. For 0 <γ< 1, consider the Manneville–Pomeau map f : [0, 1] [0, 1], given by γ → γ γ 1 x(1+2 x ) 0 x< 2 , fγ (x)= ≤ 2x 1 1 x 1. ( − 2 ≤ ≤ This is a class of intermittent maps, with a neutral fixed point at 0, which have been investigated as a model of non-uniformly hyperbolic behaviour since the work of Liverani, Saussol and Vaienti [18]. More recently, Demers and Todd have investigated open and closed intermittent maps with geometric potentials t log f ′ in [9]. The next example − | γ| shows a family of strongly contracting geometric potentials for random intermittent maps.
Example 7.5. For j =1, 2,... , let γ (0, 1). Let Ω= ∞ Ω be an (at most) countable j ∈ ∪j=1 j partition of Ω into measurable sets, and for each ω Ω , let T = f . Let 0 log gω log Einf(gω)dm + log ξ βf 0+ t log 3 + 0 log 2 < 0. k k∞ − − ≤ − Z The following example treats random intermittent maps with holes. Example 7.6. Let Ω= ∞ Ω be an (at most) countable partition of Ω into measurable ∪j=1 j sets, and for each ω Ω , let T = T : I := [0, 1] [0, 1] be a piecewise smooth map with ∈ j ω j → a hole Hω = Hj satisfying the following conditions: (i) T (0) = 0 and T ′ (0) = 1 = Einf T ′ , ω ω I | ω| 18 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI 1 (ii) Tω′ Kω, with log Kω L (m), k k∞ ≤ ∈ 1 (iii) var(log T ′ ) v , with v L (m), | ω| ≤ ω ω ∈ (iv) (Tω,Hω) has at most two contiguous non-full branches; for instance, this happens if Tω only has full branches and Hω consists of a single interval, and (v) (Tω,Hω) has bω,f full branches, and β := log bω,f dm > log 4 + t0 log Kωdm, for some 0 t < 1.8 ≤ 0 R R Then, for every 0 t t , the geometric potential log g := t log T ′ is strongly ≤ ≤ 0 { ω − | ω|} contracting for (T ,H ) . Indeed, Example 7.2(2) yields the claim, since { ω ω } (1) log gω log Einf(gω) + log(2 + ξω ) log bω,f dm 0+ t log Kωdm + log 4 β < 0. k k∞ − − ≤ − Z 7.3. Random open systems and escape rates. The following example, similar to [2, §13], relates the maximal Lyapunov exponent of open and closed systems to the escape rate of a conformal measure through the holes. Example 7.7. Assume log gω is a strongly contracting potential for the random closed ε{ } map Tω . Assume (Hω)0<ε ε0 is an increasing family of holes for each ω Ω. That is, ε { } ≤ 0 ε′ ε ε∈ H is a finite union of intervals, and := H H H for ε′ <ε. Let b the number ω ∅ ω ⊂ ω ⊂ ω ω,f of full branches of (T ,Hε ) and ξε the largest number of contiguous non-full intervals { ω ω } ω for (T ,Hε ) . Suppose there exist b ,ξ > 0 such that for every ε 0, bε b and { ω ω } ω ω ≥ ω,f ≥ ω ξε ξ , and assume ω ≤ ω log gω log Einf(gω) + log(2 + ξω) log bωdm < 0. k k∞ − − Z Then, for each 0 < ε ε , log g is a strongly contracting potential for the random ≤ 0 { ω} open map (T ,Hε) . Let νε and qε be the conformal measures and equivariant densities { ω ω } ω ω from Theorem 6.1, respectively, and let Λε the maximal Lyapunov exponent (expected ε pressure). Then ε Λ is non-increasing. Indeed, if ε′ < ε, because of the monotonicity ′ 7→ ε ,(n) ε,(n) ε of the holes, for every ω Ω, n N, we have Einf(Lω 1) Einf(Lω 1). Since Λ = 1 Lε,(n) ∈ ∈ε ≥ limn n log Einf( ω 1), ε Λ is non-increasing. →∞ 7→ ε′ ε ε′ Furthermore, for 0 ε′ < ε, Λ Λ gives the escape rate of the measure ν through ≤ ′ − ′ Hε . That is, lim 1 log νε (Xε )=Λε Λε, where Xε is the n step survivor set for { ω} − n ω ω,n − ω,n − (T ,Hε ) . Indeed, { ω ω } ε′ ε 1 ε′ ε′,(n) 1 ε′ ε,(n) ν (X )= ′ ν n L (1 ε ) = ′ ν n L 1 ω ω,n 1 ε ,(n) σ (ω) ω Xω,n−1 ε ,(n) σ (ω) ω − λω λω Lε,(n) Lε, (n) Einf( ω 1) ε′ ε ε′ ω 1 ε = ε′,(n) νσn(ω)(qσn(ω)) νσn(ω) ε,(n) qσn(ω) . λω − Einf(Lω 1) − !! ε,(n) ′ 1 Lω 1 ε ε Lemma 5.1 implies that limn n log Lε,(n) qσn(ω) < 0. Since νσn(ω) is a probabil- →∞ Einf( ω 1) − ε ε ∞ 1 ε′ ε ity measure, Einf q n =1 and q n is tempered, then lim log ν n (q n )=0. σ (ω) σ ω n n σ (ω) σ (ω) k k∞ →∞ 8 Note that Kω bω,f . ≥ EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 19 Thus, 1 ε′ ε 1 Lε,(n) 1 ε′,(n) ε ε′ lim log νω (Xω,n) = lim log Einf( ω 1) lim log λω =Λ Λ , n n n →∞ n →∞ n − →∞ n − as claimed. 7.4. Non-transitive systems and a covering criterion. The following example shows that our results are applicable to non-transitive systems. Example 7.8. Consider interval maps T : I I as in Figure 1, where the (possi- ω → bly empty) left interval of the hole Hω is positioned within the given branch. Then, (1) (1) b 5, 6 , ξω = 2 and log(2 + ξω ) log b dm log 4 log 5 < 0. Thus, Ex- ω,f ∈ { } − ω,f ≤ − ample 7.2(2) ensures the constant potential log gω = 0 is strongly contracting, provided var ′ ( TωR) 1 ′| | log Tω′ , log Einf Tω′ , T ∞ L (m). In this case, it also follows from Definition 4.2 k k∞ | | k ωk ∈ that t log T ′ is strongly contracting for sufficiently small t> 0. − | ω| 1 0 1 Hω Figure 1. A non-transitive open map Remark 7.9. The map of Figure 1 is not topologically transitive. In fact, when the Tω have a (common) Markov partition, the corresponding transition matrices have a (non-random) absorbing set corresponding to the branches within the invariant interval around 1/2. Remark 7.10. If a map T has an invariant interval J ( I, as in Figure 1, and g =1/ T ′ , ω ω | ω| then (1) log gω + log(2 + ξω ) 0 and log Einf(gω) + log bω,f dm < 0. k k∞ ≥ Indeed, the first inequality comes from two facts: (i) if N is the number of monotonic (1) branches of T , then N 2+ ξω , as all except for possibly the leftmost and rightmost ω|J ≤ branches of the invariant interval are non-full; and (ii) Einfx J Tω′ (x) N. The second ∈ | | ≤ inequality follows from Esupx I Tω′ (x) > bω,f . ∈ | | 20 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI In particular, if all maps T have a common invariant interval, then the geometric { ω} potential log T ′ is not strongly contracting. This is in agreement with the fact that {− | ω|} such a system has at least one non-fully supported random invariant measure absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. To show a stronger result in this direction, we introduce a notion of covering in the random (closed) setting, due to Buzzi [6], and show it is satisfied in wide generality, provided the potential log T ′ is strongly contracting. − | ω| Definition 7.11. A random map T is called covering if for every open interval J I, { ω} ⊂ there exists M (J) N such that ω ∈ L(Mω (J))1 (7.1) Einf ω J (x) > 0. (Mω(J)) In the context of this work, (7.1) is equivalent to Tω (J)= I. Lemma 7.12. Consider a random map T and assume the random potential log T ′ { ω} − | ω| is strongly contracting. Furthermore, assume Ω is a Borel subset of a separable complete metric space, m is a Borel probability and σ is an homeomorphism. Then, T is covering. { ω} Proof. Let Leb denote the normalized Lebesgue measure on I. A simple but crucial obser- vation is that in this case νω(f) = fdLeb, where νω is as in §5.2. Indeed, LωfdLeb = fdLeb holds by the change of variables formula and hence f fdLeb is an equivariant R 7→ R functional (in fact it is invariant by all L , and λ+ =1). Theorem 6.6 ensures uniqueness R ω ω R of the equivariant conformal measure, so νω(f)= fdLeb. Now we show the random map is covering. Let J I be an open interval. Then, L(n)1 R ⊂ 1 Einf ω J 0 < Leb(J) = νω( J ) = limn (n) . In particular, there exists M > 0 such that →∞ Einf Lω 1 (M) Einf Lω 1J > 0, as needed. Acknowledgments The authors are partially supported by an ARC Discovery Project. References [1] J. Atnip, G. Froyland, C. González-Tokman, and S. Vaienti. Thermodynamic formalism for random weighted covering systems. Comm. Math. Phys. To appear. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12 [2] J. Atnip, G. Froyland, C. González-Tokman, and S. Vaienti. Thermodynamic formalism for random interval maps with holes. 2021. arXiv:2103.04712. 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18 [3] J. Atnip and M. Urbański. Critically finite random maps of an interval. Discrete & Continuous Dy- namical Systems - A, 40(8):4839, 2020. 2 [4] V. Baladi. Correlation spectrum of quenched and annealed equilibrium states for random expanding maps. Comm. Math. Phys., 186(3):671–700, 1997. 2 [5] T. Bogenschütz and V. M. Gundlach. Ruelle’s Transfer Operator for Random Subshifts of Finite Type. Ergod. Th. & Dynam. Sys, 15:413–447, 1995. 2 [6] J. Buzzi. Exponential Decay of Correlations for Random Lasota-Yorke Maps. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 208(1):25–54, 1999. 2, 20 [7] M. F. Demers and C. Liverani. Projective cones for generalized dispersing billiards. arXiv:2104.06947, 2021. 2 EQUILIBRIUM STATES FOR NON-TRANSITIVE RANDOM DYNAMICAL SYSTEMS 21 [8] M. F. Demers and M. Todd. Equilibrium states, pressure and escape for multimodal maps with holes. Israel J. Math., 221(1):367–424, 2017. 12 [9] M. F. Demers and M. Todd. Slow and fast escape for open intermittent maps. Comm. Math. Phys., 351(2):775–835, 2017. 17 [10] D. Dragičević, G. Froyland, C. González-Tokman, and S. Vaienti. A spectral approach for quenched limit theorems for random expanding dynamical systems. Comm. Math. Phys., 360(3):1121–1187, 2018. 2 [11] G. Froyland, S. Lloyd, and A. Quas. A semi-invertible Oseledets theorem with applications to transfer operator cocycles. Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 33(9):3835–3860, 2013. 2, 14, 15 [12] F. R. Gantmacher. The theory of matrices. Vols. 1, 2. Translated by K. A. Hirsch. Chelsea Publishing Co., New York, 1959. 2 [13] C. Gupta, W. Ott, and A. Török. Memory loss for time-dependent piecewise expanding systems in higher dimension. Math. Res. Lett., 20(1):141–161, 2013. 2 [14] J. Horan. Asymptotics for the second-largest Lyapunov exponent for some Perron-Frobenius operator cocycles. arXiv:1910.12112. 2, 11 [15] Y. Kifer. Thermodynamic formalism for random transformations revisited. Stochastics and Dynamics, 08(01):77–102, Mar. 2008. 2, 3, 7 [16] C. Liverani and V. Maume-Deschamps. Lasota–Yorke maps with holes: conditionally invariant prob- ability measures and invariant probability measures on the survivor set. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincare (B) Probability and Statistics, 39(3):385–412, May 2003. 2, 4, 5, 16 [17] C. Liverani, B. Saussol, and S. Vaienti. Conformal measure and decay of correlation for covering weighted systems. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 18(6):1399–1420, Dec. 1998. 2, 7, 8, 11 [18] C. Liverani, B. Saussol, and S. Vaienti. A probabilistic approach to intermittency. Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 19(3):671–685, June 1999. 17 [19] V. Mayer and M. Urbański. Countable alphabet random subhifts of finite type with weakly positive transfer operator. J. Stat. Phys., 160(5):1405–1431, 2015. 2 [20] V. Mayer, M. Urbański, and B. Skorulski. Distance Expanding Random Mappings, Thermodynamical Formalism, Gibbs Measures and Fractal Geometry, volume 2036 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2011. 2 [21] W. Ott, M. Stenlund, and L.-S. Young. Memory loss for time-dependent dynamical systems. Math. Res. Lett., 16(3):463–475, 2009. 2 [22] M. Stadlbauer, S. Suzuki, and P. Varandas. Thermodynamic formalism for random non-uniformly expanding maps. Communications in Mathematical Physics, Apr 2021. 2, 3, 7, 17 [23] M. Stenlund, L.-S. Young, and H. Zhang. Dispersing billiards with moving scatterers. Comm. Math. Phys., 322(3):909–955, 2013. 2 [24] L.-S. Young. Understanding chaotic dynamical systems. Communications on Pure and Applied Math- ematics, 66(9):1439–1463, 2013. 2 22 JASON ATNIP, GARY FROYLAND, CECILIA GONZÁLEZ-TOKMAN, AND SANDRO VAIENTI School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Email address: [email protected] School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia Email address: [email protected] School of Mathematics and Physics, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD 4072, Australia Email address: [email protected] Aix Marseille Université, Université de Toulon, CNRS, CPT, 13009 Marseille, France Email address: [email protected]