Calculating Extremal Lyapunov Exponents of an i.i.d. Sequence of Random Matrices

159 Views Asked by At

The following is an exercise from Marcelo Viana's Lectures on Lyapunov Exponents. The goal is to calculate the extremal Lyapunov exponents. I am having trouble calculating the limit of the product of random matrices, which I believe should be done by applying the law of large numbers.

Consider an i.i.d. sequence of matrices: $$A_1 = \begin{pmatrix} \sigma & 0 \\ 0 & \frac{1}{\sigma}\end{pmatrix}\qquad A_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$$

Which are scaling/squishing by a factor of $\sigma>1$ and rotation by $\frac{\pi}{2}$, respectively. Consider the sequence $L^n = L_nL_{n-1}\cdots L_1$ where $L_i = A_1$ with probability $0 < p < 1$ and $L_i = A_2$ with probability $(1-p)$. By the theorem of Furstenberg and Kesten, the following limits exist almost surely: $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \|L^n\| = \lambda_+ \qquad \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \|(L^n)^{-1}\|^{-1} = \lambda_-$$

Since $\det(A_i) = 1$ we have $\det(L^n)=1$ for all $n$. Using the characteristic polynomial for 2x2 matrices $\rho_{A^TA}(\lambda) = \lambda^2 - tr(A^TA)\lambda + \det(A^TA)$ it follows that the matrices $L^n$ and $(L^n)^{-1}$ have the same singular values and norms for all $n$. Thus: $$\lambda_+ + \lambda_- = \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log\left(\|L^n\|\frac{1}{\|(L^n)^{-1}\|}\right) =\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n} \log(1) = 0$$

What I am having trouble with is computing $\lambda_+$ directly. My thought is this: For all $n$ the matrix $L^n$ is either diagonal or anti-diagonal. Since the matrix $A_2$ is just a rotation, the singular values of $L^n$ only increase when $L_i = A_1$. Therefore: $$\frac{1}{n}\log\|L^n\| = \frac{1}{n}\log \sigma^k$$

Some $0 \leq \frac{k}{n} < 1$. This term should approach zero rather fast since $A_2$ swaps the axes that are getting scaled, e.g.: $$A_1A_2A_1 = A_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & -1 \\ 1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$$

There should be a way to incorporate the $L_i = A_2$ terms in order for $\frac{k}{n} \to 0$ in the limit instead of $\frac{k}{n} \to p$ but I can't figure it out.