\begin{definition}[Paths]

    We define a \emph{path} of the Markov Chain as a sequence of states and resampling choices $\xi=((b_0,r_0),(b_1,r_1),...,(b_k,r_k)) \in (\{0,1\}^n\times[n])^k$ indicating that at time $t$ Markov Chain was in state $b_t\in\{0,1\}^n$ and then resampled site $r_t$. We denote by $|\xi|$ the length of such a path, i.e. the number of resamples that happened, and by $\mathbb{P}[\xi]$ the probability associated to this path.

    We denote by $\paths{b}$ the set of all valid paths $\xi$ that start in state $b$ and end in state $\mathbf{1}$.

\end{definition}

We can write the expected number of resamplings per site $R^{(n)}(p)$ as

\begin{align}

    R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in\{0,1\}^{n}} \rho_b \; R_b(p) \label{eq:originalsum}

\end{align}

where $R_b(p)$ is the expected number of resamplings when starting from configuration $b$

\begin{align*}

	R_b(p) &= \sum_{\xi \in \paths{b}} \mathbb{P}[\xi] \cdot |\xi|

\end{align*}

We consider $R^{(n)}(p)$ as a power series in $p$ and show that many terms in (\ref{eq:originalsum}) cancel out if we only consider the series up to some finite order $p^k$. Note that if a path samples a $0$ then $\mathbb{P}[\xi]$ gains a factor $p$.\\

To see this, we split the sum in (\ref{eq:originalsum}) into parts that will later cancel out. The initial probabilities $\rho_b$ contain a factor $p$ for every $0$ and a factor $(1-p)$ for every $1$. When expanding this product of $p$s and $(1-p)$s, we see that the $1$s contribute a factor $1$ and a factor $(-p)$ and the $0$s only give a factor $p$. Therefore we no longer consider bitstrings $b\in\{0,1\}^n$ but bitstrings $b\in\{0,1,1'\}^n$. We view this as follows: every site can have one of $\{0,1,1'\}$ with `probabilities' $p$, $1$ and $-p$ respectively. A configuration $b=101'1'101'$ now has probability $\rho_{b} = 1\cdot p\cdot(-p)\cdot(-p)\cdot 1\cdot p\cdot(-p) = -p^5$ in the starting state $\rho$. It should not be hard to see that we have

\begin{align*}

    R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in\{0,1,1'\}^{n}} \rho_{b} \; R_{\bar{b}}(p) ,

\end{align*}

where $\bar{b}$ is the bitstring obtained by changing every $1'$ in it back to a $1$. It is simply the same sum as (\ref{eq:originalsum}) but now every factor $(1-p)$ is explicitly split into $1$ and $(-p)$.

Some terminology: for any configuration we call a $0$ a \emph{particle} (probability $p$) and a $1'$ an \emph{antiparticle} (probability $-p$). We use the word \emph{slot} for a position that is occupied by either a paritcle or antiparticle ($0$ or $1'$). In the initial state, the probability of a configuration is given by $\pm p^{\mathrm{\#slots}}$ where the $\pm$ sign depends on the parity of the number of antiparticles.

We can further rewrite the sum over $b\in\{0,1,1'\}^n$ as a sum over all slot configurations $C\subseteq[n]$ and over all possible fillings of these slots.

\begin{align*}

	R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{C\subseteq[n]} \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)} ,

\end{align*}

where $C(f)\in\{0,1,1'\}^n$ denotes a configuration with slots on the sites $C$ filled with (anti)particles described by $f$. The non-slot positions are filled with $1$s.

\begin{definition}[Diameter]

	For a slot configuration $C\subseteq[n]$, we define the diameter $\diam{C}$ to be the minimum size of an interval containing $C$ where the interval is also considered modulo $n$. In other words $\diam{C} = n - \max\{ j \vert \exists i : [i,i+j-1]\cap C = \emptyset \}$. Figure \ref{fig:diametergap} shows the diameter in a picture.

\end{definition}

\begin{figure}

	\begin{center}

    	\includegraphics{diagram_gap.pdf}

    \end{center}

    \caption{\label{fig:diametergap} A configuration $C=\{1,2,4,7,9\}\subseteq[n]$ consisting of 5 slots shown by the red dots. The blue squares denote the set $C_{><}$ which is all elements of $[n]\setminus C$ that lie within the interval spanned by $C$. The dotted line at the top depicts the rest of the circle which may be much larger. The diameter of this configuration is $\diam{C} = |C| + |C_{><}| =9$ as shown. The largest gap of $C$ is $\mathrm{gap}(C)=2$ which is the largest connected component of $C_{><}$. Note that we do not count the rest of the circle as a gap, we only consider gaps \emph{within} the diameter of $C$.}

\end{figure}

\begin{claim}[Strong cancellation claim] \label{claim:strongcancel}

	The lowest order term in

    \begin{align*}

        \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)} ,

    \end{align*}

	is $p^{\diam{C}}$ when $n$ is large enough. All lower order terms cancel out.

\end{claim}

Example: for $C_0=\{1,2,4,7,9\}$ (the configuration shown in Figure \ref{fig:diametergap}) we computed the quantity up to order $p^{20}$ in an infinite system:

\begin{align*}

	\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_0|}} \rho_{C_0(f)} R_{C_0(f)} &= 0.0240278 p^{9} + 0.235129 p^{10} + 1.24067 p^{11} + 4.71825 p^{12} \\

    &\quad + 14.5555 p^{13} + 38.8307 p^{14} + 93.2179 p^{15} + 206.837 p^{16}\\

    &\quad + 432.302 p^{17} + 862.926 p^{18} + 1662.05 p^{19} + 3112.9 p^{20} + \mathcal{O}(p^{21})

\end{align*}

and indeed the lowest order is $\diam{C}=9$.

~

A weaker version of the claim is that if $C$ contains a gap of size $k$, then the sum is zero up to and including order $p^{|C|+k-1}$.

\begin{claim}[Weak cancellation claim] \label{claim:weakcancel}

	For $C\subseteq[n]$ a configuration of slot positions, the lowest order term in

    \begin{align*}

        \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)} ,

    \end{align*}

	is at least $p^{|C|+\mathrm{gap}(C)}$ when $n$ is large enough. Here $\mathrm{gap}(C)$ is defined as in Figure \ref{fig:diametergap}, its the size of the largest gap of $C$ within the diameter of $C$. All lower order terms cancel out.

\end{claim}

This weaker version would imply \ref{it:const} but for $\mathcal{O}(k^2)$ as opposed to $k+1$.

\newpage

The reason that claim \ref{claim:strongcancel} would prove \ref{it:const} is the following:

For a starting configuration that \emph{does} give a nonzero contribution, you can take that same starting configuration and translate it to get $n$ other configurations that give the same contribution. Therefore the coefficient in the expected number of resamplings is a multiple of $n$ which Andr\'as already divided out in the definition of $R^{(n)}(p)$. To show \ref{it:const} we argue that this is the \emph{only} dependency on $n$. This is because there are only finitely many (depending on $k$ but not on $n$) configurations where the $k$ slots are nearby regardless of the value of $n$. So there are only finitely many nonzero contributions after translation symmetry was taken out. For example, when considering all starting configurations with 5 slots one might think there are $\binom{n}{5}$ configurations to consider which would be a dependency on $n$ (more than only the translation symmetry). But since most of these configurations have a diameter larger than $k$, they do not contribute to $a_k$. Only finitely many do and that does not depend on $n$.

~

Section \ref{sec:computerb} shows how to compute $R_b$ (this is not relevant for showing the claim) and the section after that shows how to prove the weaker claim.

\newpage

\subsection{Computation of $R_b$} \label{sec:computerb}

By $R_{101}$ we denote $R_b(p)$ for a $b$ that consists of only $1$s except for a single zero. We compute $R_{101}$ up to second order in $p$. This requires the following transitions.

\begin{align*}

    \framebox{$1 0 1$} &\to \framebox{$1 1 1$} & (1-p)^3 = 1-3p+3p^2-p^3\\

    \hline

    \framebox{$1 0 1$} &\to

        \begin{cases}

            \framebox{$0 1 1$}\\

            \framebox{$1 0 1$}\\

            \framebox{$1 1 0$}

        \end{cases}

        & 3p(1-p)^2 = 3p-6p^2+3p^3\\

    \hline

    \framebox{$1 0 1$} &\to \framebox{$0 1 0$} & p^2(1-p) = p^2-p^3\\

    \framebox{$1 0 1$} &\to

        \begin{cases}

            \framebox{$1 0 0$}\\

            \framebox{$0 0 1$}

        \end{cases}

        & 2p^2(1-p) = 2p^2 - 2p^3\\

    \hline

    \framebox{$1 0 1$} &\to \framebox{$0 0 0$} & p^3

\end{align*}

With this we can write a recursive formula for the expected number of resamples from $101$:

\begin{align*}

    R_{101} &= (1-3p+3p^2 - p^3)(1) + (3p -6p^2 +3p^3) (1+R_{101}) \\

            &\quad + (p^2 - p^3) (1+R_{10101}) + (2p^2-2p^3) (1+R_{1001}) \\

			&= 1 + 3 p + 7 p^2 + 14.6667 p^3 + 29 p^4 + 55.2222 p^5 + 102.444 p^6 + 186.36 p^7 \\

            &\quad + 333.906 p^8 + 590.997 p^9 + 1035.58 p^{10} + 1799.39 p^{11} + 3104.2 p^{12} \\

            &\quad+ 5322.18 p^{13} + 9075.83 p^{14} + 15403.6 p^{15} + 26033.4 p^{16} + 43833.5 p^{17} \\

            &\quad+ 73555.2 p^{18} + 123053 p^{19} + 205290 p^{20} + 341620 p^{21} + 567161 p^{22} \\

            &\quad+ 939693 p^{23} + 1.5537\cdot10^{6} p^{24} + 2.56158\cdot10^{6} p^{25} + \mathcal{O}(p^{26})

\end{align*}

where the recursion steps were done with a computer. This assumes $n$ to be much larger than the largest power of $p$ considered.

Note: in the first line at the second term it uses that with probability $(3p-6p^2)$ the state goes to $\framebox{$101$}$ and then the expected number of resamplings is $1+R_{101}$. I (Tom) believe this requires the assumption $p_\mathrm{tot} := \sum_{\xi\in\paths{b}} \mathbb{P}[\xi] = 1$. To see why this is required, note that the actual term in the recursive formula should be $$(3p-6p^2)\cdot\left( \sum_{\xi\in\paths{101}} \mathbb{P}[\xi] \cdot \left( 1 + |\xi|\right) \right) = (3p-6p^2)\left( p_\mathrm{tot} + R_{101} \right)$$

When there would be a non-zero probability of never stopping the resample process then $p_\mathrm{tot}$ (the probability of ever reaching $\mathbf{1}$) could be less than one. Therefore I assume that $R^{(n)}(p)$ is finite which implies that the probability of ever reaching $\mathbf{1}$ is 1.

\newpage

\subsection{Cancellation of gapped configurations}

Here we prove claim \ref{claim:weakcancel}, the weaker version of the claim. We require the following definition

\begin{definition}[Path independence] \label{def:independence}

	We say two paths $\xi_i\in\paths{b_i}$ ($i=1,2$) of the Markov Chain are \emph{independent} if $\xi_1$ never resamples a site that was ever zero in $\xi_2$ and the other way around. It is allowed that $\xi_1$ resamples a $1$ to a $1$ that was also resampled from $1$ to $1$ by $\xi_2$ and vice versa. If the paths are not independent then we call the paths \emph{dependent}.

\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Path independence - alternative] \label{def:independence2}

    Equivalently, on the infinite line $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ are independent if there is a site `inbetween' them that was never zero in $\xi_1$ and never zero in $\xi_2$. On the circle $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ are independent if there are \emph{two} sites inbetween them that are never zero.

\end{definition}

\begin{claim}[Sum of expectation values] \label{claim:expectationsum}

When $b=b_1\land b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ is a state with two groups ($b_1\lor b_2 = 1^n$) of zeroes with $k$ $1$s inbetween the groups, then we have $R_b(p) = R_{b_1}(p) + R_{b_2}(p) + \mathcal{O}(p^{k})$ where $b_1$ and $b_2$ are the configurations where only one of the groups is present and the other group has been replaced by $1$s. To be precise, the sums agree up to and including order $p^{k-1}$.

\end{claim}

\textbf{Example}: For $b_1 = 0111111$ and $b_2 = 1111010$ we have $b=0111010$ and $k=3$. The claim says that the expected time to reach $\mathbf{1}$ from $b$ is the time to make the first group $1$ plus the time to make the second group $1$, as if they are independent. Simulation shows that

\begin{align*}

    R_{b_1} &= 1 + 3p + 7p^2 + 14.67p^3 + 29p^4 + \mathcal{O}(p^5)\\

    R_{b_2} &= 2 + 5p + 10.67p^2 + 21.11p^3+40.26p^4 + \mathcal{O}(p^5)\\

    R_{b} &= 3 + 8p + 17.67p^2 + 34.78p^3+65.27p^4 + \mathcal{O}(p^5)\\

    R_{b_1} + R_{b_2} &= 3 + 8p + 17.67p^2+35.78p^3 + 69.26p^4 +\mathcal{O}(p^5)

\end{align*}

and indeed the sums agree up to order $p^{k-1}=p^2$. When going up to order $p^{k}$ or higher, there will be terms where the groups interfere so they are no longer independent.

~

\begin{proof}

Consider a path $\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}$ and a path $\xi_2\in\paths{b_2}$ such that $\xi_1$ and $\xi_2$ are independent (Definition \ref{def:independence}). The paths $\xi_1,\xi_2$ induce $\binom{|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|}{|\xi_1|}$ different paths of total length $|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|$ in $\paths{b_1\land b_2}$. In the sums $R_{b_1}$ and $R_{b_2}$, the contribution of these paths are $\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot |\xi_1|$ and $\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\cdot |\xi_2|$. The next diagram shows how these $\binom{|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|}{|\xi_1|}$ paths contribute to $R_{b_1\land b_2}$. At every step one has to choose between doing a step of $\xi_1$ or a step of $\xi_2$. The number of zeroes in the current state determine the probabilities with which this happens (beside the probabilities associated to the two original paths already). The grid below shows that at every point one can choose to do a step of $\xi_1$ with probability $p_i$ or a step of $\xi_2$ with probability $1-p_i$. These $p_i$ could in principle be different at every point in this grid. 

\begin{center}

\includegraphics{diagram_paths.pdf}

\end{center}

The weight of such a new path is the weight of the path in the diagram, multiplied by $\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]$. By induction one can show that the sum over all $\binom{|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|}{|\xi_1|}$ paths in the grid is $1$. Hence the contribution of all $\binom{|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|}{|\xi_1|}$ paths together to $R_{b_1\land b_2}$ is given by

\[

\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\cdot(|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|) = \mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot|\xi_1| \;\; + \;\; \mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\cdot|\xi_2|.

\]

Ideally we would now like to sum this expression over all possible paths $\xi_1,\xi_2$ and use $p_\mathrm{tot}:=\sum_{\xi\in\paths{b_i}} \mathbb{P}[\xi] = 1$ (which also holds up to arbitrary order in $p$). The above expression would then become $R_{b_1} + R_{b_2}$. However, not all paths in the sum would satisfy the independence condition so it seems we can't do this. We now argue that it works up to order $p^{k-1}$.

For all $\xi\in\paths{b_1\land b_2}$ we have that \emph{either} $\xi$ splits into two independent paths $\xi_1,\xi_2$ as above, \emph{or} it does not. In the latter case, when $\xi$ can not be split like that, we know $\mathbb{P}[\xi]$ contains a power $p^k$ or higher because there is a gap of size $k$  and the paths must have moved at least $k$ times `towards each other' (for example one path moves $m$ times to the right and the other path moves $k-m$ times to the left). So the total weight of such a combined path is at least order $p^k$. Therefore we have

\[

	R_{b_1\land b_2} = \sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\xi_{1,2}\in\paths{b_{1,2}}\\ \mathrm{independent}}}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]|\xi_1| + \sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\xi_{1,2}\in\paths{b_{1,2}}\\ \mathrm{independent}}}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]|\xi_2| + \sum_{\mathclap{\xi\;\mathrm{dependent}}} \mathbb{P}[\xi]|\xi|.

\]

where last sum only contains only terms of order $p^{k}$ or higher. Now for the first sum, note that

\[

	\sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\xi_{1,2}\in\paths{b_{1,2}}\\ \mathrm{independent}}}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]|\xi_1|

    = \sum_{\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}} \sum_{\substack{\xi_2\in\paths{b_2}\\ \text{independent of }\xi_1}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]|\xi_1|

\]

where the sum over independent paths could be empty for certain $\xi_1$. Now we replace this last sum by a sum over \emph{all} paths $\xi_2\in\paths{b_2}$. This will change the sum but only for terms where $\xi_1,\xi_2$ are dependent. For those terms we already know that $\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]$ contains a factor $p^k$ and hence we have 

\begin{align*}

    \sum_{\mathclap{\substack{\xi_{1,2}\in\paths{b_{1,2}}\\ \mathrm{independent}}}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]|\xi_1|

    &= \sum_{\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}} \sum_{\xi_2\in\paths{b_2}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_2]\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]|\xi_1| + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \\

    &= \sum_{\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}} \mathbb{P}[\xi_1]|\xi_1| + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \\

    &= R_{b_1} + \mathcal{O}(p^k)

\end{align*}

we can do the same with the second term and this proves the claim.

\end{proof}

~\\

\textbf{Proof of claim \ref{claim:weakcancel}}: We can assume $C$ consists of a group on the left with $l$ slots and a group on the right with $r$ slots (so $r+l=|C|$), with a gap of size $k=\mathrm{gap}(C)$ between these groups. Then on the left we have strings in $\{0,1'\}^l$ as possibilities and on the right we have strings in $\{0,1'\}^r$. The combined configuration can be described by strings $f=(a,b)\in\{0,1'\}^{l+r}$. The initial probability of such a state $C(a,b)$ is $\rho_{C(a,b)} = (-1)^{|a|+|b|} p^{r+l}$ and by claim \ref{claim:expectationsum} we know $R_{C(a,b)} = R_{C(a)} + R_{C(b)} + \mathcal{O}(p^k)$ where $C(a)$ indicates that only the left slots have been filled by $a$ and the other slots are filled with $1$s. The total contribution of these configurations is therefore

\begin{align*}

    \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)}

    &= \sum_{a\in\{0,1'\}^l} \sum_{b\in\{0,1'\}^r} (-1)^{|a|+|b|}p^{r+l} \left( R_{C(a)} + R_{C(b)} + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \right) \\

    &=\;\;\; p^{r+l}\sum_{a\in\{0,1'\}^l} (-1)^{|a|} R_{C(a)} \sum_{b\in\{0,1'\}^r} (-1)^{|b|} \\

    &\quad + p^{r+l}\sum_{b\in\{0,1'\}^r} (-1)^{|b|} R_{C(b)} \sum_{a\in\{0,1'\}^l} (-1)^{|a|}

        + \mathcal{O}(p^{r+l+k})\\

    &= 0 + \mathcal{O}(p^{|C|+k})

\end{align*}

where we used the identity $\sum_{a\in\{0,1\}^l} (-1)^{|a|} = 0$.

~

It is useful to introduce some new notation: for any event $A$ (where an event is a set of paths), define

\begin{align*}

    \mathbb{P}_b(A) &= \mathbb{P}(A \;|\; \text{start in }b) \\

    R_{b,A} &= \mathbb{E}( \#resamples \;|\; A\;,\; \text{start in }b)

\end{align*}

Denote by $\mathrm{Z}_j$ the event that site $j$ becomes zero at any point in time before the Markov Chain terminates. Denote the complement by $\mathrm{NZ}_j$, i.e. the event that site $j$ does \emph{not} become zero before it terminates.

The proof of claim \ref{claim:expectationsum} also proves the following claim

\begin{claim}[Conditional independence] \label{claim:eventindependence}

    As in \ref{claim:expectationsum}, let $b=b_1\land b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ be a state with two groups ($b_1\lor b_2 = 1^n$) of zeroes. Let $j_1$, $j_2$ be indices `inbetween' the groups (or only one index in case of the infinite line). Then we have

    \begin{align*}

        \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1} , \mathrm{NZ}_{j_2})

        &=

        \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1} , \mathrm{NZ}_{j_2})

        \; \cdot \;

        \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1} , \mathrm{NZ}_{j_2}) \\

        R_{b,\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1},\mathrm{NZ}_{j_2}}

        &=

        R_{b_1,\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1},\mathrm{NZ}_{j_2}}

        \; + \;

        R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1},\mathrm{NZ}_{j_2}}

    \end{align*}

    up to any order in $p$.

\end{claim}

\begin{proof}

    For clarity we do the proof for the infinite line, when there is only one index. Simply replace $\mathrm{NZ}_j$ by $\mathrm{NZ}_{j_1}\cap\mathrm{NZ}_{j_2}$ for the case of the circle.

    Note that any path $\xi\in\paths{b} \cap \mathrm{NZ}_j$ can be split into paths $\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}\cap \mathrm{NZ}_j$ and $\xi_2\in\paths{b_2}\cap\mathrm{NZ}_j$ and by the same reasoning as in the proof of claim \ref{claim:expectationsum}, we obtain

    \begin{align*}

        \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{NZ}_j)

        = \sum_{\substack{\xi\in\paths{b}\\\xi \in \mathrm{NZ}_j}} \mathbb{P}[\xi]

        &= \sum_{\substack{\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}\\\xi_1 \in \mathrm{NZ}_j}}

          \sum_{\substack{\xi_2\in\paths{b_1}\\\xi_2 \in \mathrm{NZ}_j}}

        \mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_2] \\

        &=

        \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{NZ}_j)

        \; \cdot \;

        \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_j).

    \end{align*}

    For the second equality, note that again by the same reasoning as in the proof of claim \ref{claim:expectationsum} we have

    \begin{align*}

        \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b,\mathrm{NZ}_j}

        := \sum_{\substack{\xi\in\paths{b}\\\xi \in \mathrm{NZ}_j}} \mathbb{P}[\xi] |\xi| 

        &= \sum_{\substack{\xi_1\in\paths{b_1}\\\xi_1 \in \mathrm{NZ}_j}}

          \sum_{\substack{\xi_2\in\paths{b_2}\\\xi_2 \in \mathrm{NZ}_j}}

        \mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\mathbb{P}[\xi_2] (|\xi_1| + |\xi_2|) \\

        &=

        \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b_1,\mathrm{NZ}_j}

        \; + \;

        \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_j} .

    \end{align*}

    Dividing by $\mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{NZ}_j)$ and using the first equality gives the desired result.

\end{proof}

~

TEST: Although a proof of claim \ref{claim:expectationsum} was already given, I'm trying to prove it in an alternate way using claim \ref{claim:eventindependence}.

~

Assume that $b_1$ ranges up to site $0$, the gap ranges from sites $1,...,k$ and $b_2$ ranges from site $k+1$ and onwards. For $j=1,...,k$ define the ``partial-zeros'' event $\mathrm{PZ}_j = \mathrm{Z}_1 \cap \mathrm{Z}_2 \cap ... \cap \mathrm{Z}_{j-1} \cap \mathrm{NZ}_j$ i.e. the first $j-1$ sites of the gap become zero and site $j$ does not become zero. Also define the ``all-zeros'' event $\mathrm{AZ} = \mathrm{Z}_1 \cap ... \cap \mathrm{Z}_k$, where all sites of the gap become zero. Note that these events partition the space, so we have for all $b$ that $\sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{PZ}_j) = 1 - \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{AZ}) = 1 - \mathcal{O}(p^k)$.

~

Furthermore, if site $j$ becomes zero when starting from $b_1$ it means all sites to the left of $j$ become zero as well. Similarly, from $b_2$ it implies all the sites to the right of $j$ become zero.

Because of that, we have

\begin{align*}

    \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{PZ}_j) &= \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{Z}_{j-1} \cap \mathrm{NZ}_j) = \mathcal{O}(p^{j-1}) \\

    \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) &= 1 - \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{Z}_j) = 1 - \mathcal{O}(p^{k-j+1})

\end{align*}

Following the proof of claim \ref{claim:eventindependence} we also have

\begin{align*}

    \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{PZ}_{j})

    &=

    \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{PZ}_{j})

    \; \cdot \;

    \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_{j}) \\

    R_{b,\mathrm{PZ}_{j}}

    &=

    R_{b_1,\mathrm{PZ}_{j}}

    \; + \;

    R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_{j}}

\end{align*}

Now observe that

\begin{align*}

    R_b &= \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{PZ}_j) R_{b,\mathrm{PZ}_j} + \mathbb{P}_b(\mathrm{AZ}) R_{b,\mathrm{AZ}} \\

        &= \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{NZ}_j)\mathbb{P}_{b_{1}}(\mathrm{PZ}_j) R_{b_1,\mathrm{PZ}_j}

        + \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{PZ}_j)\mathbb{P}_{b_{2}}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_j}

        + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \\

        &= \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_{1}}(\mathrm{PZ}_j) R_{b_1,\mathrm{PZ}_j}

        - \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_2}(\mathrm{Z}_j)\mathbb{P}_{b_{1}}(\mathrm{PZ}_j) R_{b_1,\mathrm{PZ}_j}

        + \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{PZ}_j)\mathbb{P}_{b_{2}}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_j}

        + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \\

        &= \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_{1}}(\mathrm{PZ}_j) R_{b_1,\mathrm{PZ}_j}

        + \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{PZ}_j)\mathbb{P}_{b_{2}}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_j}

        + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \\

        &= R_{b_1}

        + \sum_{j=1}^k \mathbb{P}_{b_1}(\mathrm{PZ}_j)\mathbb{P}_{b_{2}}(\mathrm{NZ}_j) R_{b_2,\mathrm{NZ}_j}

        + \mathcal{O}(p^k) \\

        &\overset{???}{=} R_{b_1} + R_{b_2} + \mathcal{O}(p^k)

\end{align*}

\newpage

    \subsection{Attempt to prove the linear bound \ref{it:const}}

Consider the chain (instead of the cycle) for simplicity with vertices identified by $\mathbb{Z}$.

\begin{definition}[Starting state dependent probability distribution.]

	Let $I\subset\mathbb{Z}$ be a finite set of vertices.

	Let $b_I$ be the initial state where everything is $1$, apart from the vertices corresponding to $I$, which are set $0$. For an event $A$ representing a subset of all possible resample sequences let $P_I(A)$ denote the probability of seeing a resample sequence from $A$ when the whole procedure started in state $b_I$. 

\end{definition}

\begin{definition}[Vertex visiting resamplings]\label{def:visitingResamplings}

	Let $V^{(i)}$ be the event corresponding to ``Vertex $i$ gets resampled to $0$ before termination''.

\end{definition}

The intuition of the following lemma is that the far right can only affect the zero vertex if there is an interaction chain forming, which means that every vertex should get resampled to $0$ at least once.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:probIndep}

	Suppose we have a finite set $I\subset\mathbb{N}_+$ of vertices.

	Let $I_{\max}:=\max(I)$ and $I':=I\setminus\{I_{\max}\}$, and similarly let $I_{\min}:=\min(I)$.

	Then $P_{I}(V^{(0)})=P_{I'}(V^{(0)}) + O(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})$.

\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}

	The proof uses induction on $|I|$. For $|I|=1$ the statement is easy, since every resample sequence that resamples the $0$ vertex must produce at least $I_{\max}$ number of $0$-s during the resamplings.

	Induction step: For an event $A$ and $k>0$ let us denote by $A_k=A\cap$``Each vertex in $0,1,2,\ldots, k-1$ gets $0$ before termination (either by resampling or initialisation), but not $k$''. Observe that $V^{(0)}=\dot{\bigcup}_{k=1}^{\infty}V^{(0)}_k$.

    Let $I_{<k}:=I\cap[k-1]$ and similarly $I_{>k}:=I\setminus[k]$, finally let $I_{><}:=\{I_{\min}+1,I_{\max}-1]\}\setminus I$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:diametergap}. Suppose we proved the claim up to $|I|-1$, then the induction step can be shown by

	\begin{align*}

		P_{I}(V^{(0)})

		&=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}P(V^{(0)}_k)

		=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}\setminus I}P(V^{(0)}_k)\\

		&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}\setminus I}P_{I_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot P_{I_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}}) \tag{by Claim~\ref{claim:eventindependence}}\\

		&=\sum_{k\in I_{><}}P_{I_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot P_{I_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}})+\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})

		\tag{$k<I_{\min}\Rightarrow P_{I_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)=0$}\\

		&=\sum_{k\in I_{><}}P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot P_{I_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}})+\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})	

		\tag{$k< I_{\max}\Rightarrow I_{<k}=I'_{<k}$}\\

		&=\sum_{k\in I_{><}}P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot

		\left(P_{I'_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}})+\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}-k+1-|I_{>k}|})\right) +\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})	\tag{by induction, since for $k>I_{\min}$ we have $|I_{<k}|<|I|$}\\

		&=\sum_{k\in I_{><}}P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot

		P_{I'_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}}) +\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})	

		\tag{as $P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)=\mathcal{O}(p^{k-|I'_{<k}|})$}\\

		&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}\setminus I}P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot

		P_{I'_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}}) +\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})\\

		&=\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}\setminus I'}P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)\cdot

		P_{I'_{>k}}(\overline{V^{(k)}}) +\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})	\tag{$k=I_{\max}\Rightarrow P_{I'_{<k}}(V^{(0)}_k)=\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}-|I'|})=\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})$}\\

		&=P_{I'}(V^{(0)}) +\mathcal{O}(p^{I_{\max}+1-|I|})	\tag{analogously to the beginning}			

	\end{align*}

\end{proof}

	The main insight that Lemma~\ref{lemma:probIndep} gives is that if we separate the slots to two halves, in order to see the cancellation of the contribution of the expected resamples on the right, we can simply pair up the left configurations by the particle filling the leftmost slot. And similarly for cancelling the left expectations we pair up right configurations based on the rightmost filling. 

	Also this claim finally ``sees'' how many empty places are between slots. These properties make it possible to use this lemma to prove the sought linear bound. We show it for the infinite chain, but with a little care it should also translate to the circle.

\begin{definition}[Connected patches]

	Let $\mathcal{P}\subset 2^{\mathbb{Z}}$ be a finite system of finite subsets of $\mathbb{Z}$. We say that the patch set of a resample sequence is $\mathcal{P}$,

	if the connected components of the vertices that have ever become $0$ are exactly the elements of $\mathcal{P}$. We denote by $A^{(\mathcal{P})}$ the event that the set of patches is $\mathcal{P}$. For a patch $P$ let $A^{(P)}=\bigcup_{\mathcal{P}:P\in \mathcal{P}}A^{(\mathcal{P})}$.

\end{definition} 

Note by Tom: So $A^{(\mathcal{P})}$ is the event that the set of all patches is \emph{exactly} $\mathcal{P}$ whereas $A^{(P)}$ is the event that one of the patches is equal to $P$ but there can be other patches as well.

\begin{definition}[Conditional expectations]

	Let $S\subset\mathbb{Z}$ be a finite slot configuration, and for $f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}$ let $I:=S(f)$ be the set of vertices filled with particles. 

	Then we define

	$$R_I:=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings when started from inital state }I\}].$$

	For a patch set $\mathcal{P}$ and some $P\in\mathcal{P}$ we define

	$$R^{(\mathcal{P})}_I:=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings when started from inital state }I\}|A^{(\mathcal{P})}]$$	

	and 

	$$R^{(P,\mathcal{P})}_I:=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings inside }P\text{ when started from inital state }I\}|A^{(\mathcal{P})}]$$		

	finally

	$$R^{(P)}_I:=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings inside }P\text{ when started from inital state }I\}|A^{(P)}].$$	

\end{definition} 

    Similarly to Mario's proof I use the observation that 

    \begin{align*}

    R^{(n)} &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in\{0,1,1'\}^{n}} \rho_b \; R_{\bar{b}}(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}\rho_{S(f)} R_{S(f)}\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}\rho_{S(f)}

    \sum_{\mathcal{P}\text{ patches}} \mathbb{P}_{S(f)}(A^{(\mathcal{P})}) R^{(\mathcal{P})}_{S(f)} \\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}\rho_{S(f)}

    \sum_{\mathcal{P}\text{ patches}} \mathbb{P}_{S(f)}(A^{\mathcal{P}}) \sum_{P\in\mathcal{P}} R^{(P,\mathcal{P})}_{S(f)}\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}\rho_{S(f)} 

    \sum_{\mathcal{P}\text{ patches}} \mathbb{P}_{S(f)}(A^{\mathcal{P}}) \sum_{P\in\mathcal{P}} R^{(P)}_{S(f)\cap P}\tag{by Claim~\ref{claim:eventindependence}}\\ 

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}\rho_{S(f)} 

    \sum_{P\text{ patch}} R^{(P)}_{S(f)\cap P}\sum_{\mathcal{P}:P\in\mathcal{P}}\mathbb{P}_{S(f)}(A^{\mathcal{P}})\\     

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{P\text{ patch}}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}

     \rho_{S(f)} R^{(P)}_{S(f)\cap P}\mathbb{P}_{S(f)}(A^{(P)}) \tag{by definition}\\        

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{P\text{ patch}}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|S|}}

    \rho_{S(f)} R^{(P)}_{S(f)\cap P}\mathbb{P}_{S(f)\cap P}(A^{(P)})\mathbb{P}_{S(f)\cap \overline{P}}(\overline{V^{(P_{\min}-1)}}\cap\overline{V^{(P_{\max}+1)}}) \tag{remember Definition~\ref{def:visitingResamplings} and use Claim~\ref{claim:eventindependence}}\\    

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{P\text{ patch}}\sum_{f_P\in\{0,1'\}^{|S\cap P|}}

    \rho_{S(f_P)}  R^{(P)}_{S(f_P)}\mathbb{P}_{S(f_P)}(A^{(P)})

    \sum_{f_{\overline{P}}\in\{0,1'\}^{|S\cap \overline{P}|}}\rho_{S(f_{\overline{P}})}\mathbb{P}_{S(f_{\overline{P}})}(\overline{V^{(P_{\min}-1)}}\cap\overline{V^{(P_{\max}+1)}}) \\   

	&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\sum_{P\text{ patch}}\sum_{f_P\in\{0,1'\}^{|S\cap P|}}

	\rho_{S(f_P)}

	\sum_{f_{\overline{P}}\in\{0,1'\}^{|S\cap \overline{P}|}}\rho_{S(f_{\overline{P}})}\mathcal{O}(p^{|S_{><}|}) \\             

	&= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{S\subseteq [n]}\mathcal{O}(p^{|S|+|S_{><}|}).

    \end{align*}

   	The penultimate inequality can be seen by case separation.

   	If $S_{><}\subseteq P$ then already $\mathbb{P}_{S(f_P)}(A^{(P)})=\mathcal{O}(p^{|S_{><}|})$.

   	Otherwise if all elements of $S_{><}\setminus P$ are larger than $P_{\max}$ then we view the last summation as $\sum_{f'_{\overline{P}}\in\{0,1'\}^{|S\cap \overline{P}\setminus\{S_{\max}\}|}}\sum_{f''_{\overline{P}}\in\{0,1'\}^{1}}$ and use Lemma~\ref{lemma:probIndep} to conclude the cancellations pairwise regarding the filling of $S_{\max}$, i.e., the value of $f''_{\overline{P}}$. We proceed similarly when 

   	all elements of $S_{><}\setminus P$ are smaller than $P_{\min}$. In the last case we again proceed similarly, but now the cancellations will come from the interplay of $4$ fillings, corresponding to the possible filling of $S_{\min}$ and $S_{\max}$ simultaneously.

    Questions:

    \begin{itemize}

    	\item Is this proof finally flawless?

    	\item In view of this proof, can we better characterise $a_k^{(k+1)}$?

    	\item Why did Mario's and Tom's simulation show that for fixed $C$ the contribution coefficients have constant sign? Is it relevant for proving \ref{it:pos}-\ref{it:geq}?

    	\item Can we prove the conjectured formula for $a_k^{(3)}$?		

    \end{itemize} 

\begin{comment}

    \subsection{Sketch of the (false) proof of the linear bound \ref{it:const}}

    Let us interpret $[n]$ as the vertices of a length-$n$ cycle, and interpret operations on vertices mod $n$ s.t. $n+1\equiv 1$ and $1-1\equiv n$.

    %\begin{definition}[Resample sequences]

    %	A sequence of indices $(r_\ell)=(r_1,r_2,\ldots,r_k)\in[n]^k$ is called resample sequence if our procedure performs $k$ consequtive resampling, where the first resampling of the procedure resamples around the mid point $r_1$ the second around $r_2$ and so on. Let $RS(k)$ the denote the set of length $k$ resample sequences, and let $RS=\cup_{k\in\mathbb{N}}RS(k)$.

    %\end{definition}

    %\begin{definition}[Constrained resample sequence]\label{def:constrainedRes}

    %	Let $C\subseteq[n]$ denote a slot configuration, and let $a\in\{\text{res},\neg\text{res}\}^{n-|C|}$, where the elements correspond to labels ``resampled" vs. ``not resampled" respectively. 

    %	For $j\in[n-|C|]$ let $i_j$ denote the $j$-th index in $[n]\setminus C$.

    %	We define the set $A^{(C,a)}\subseteq RS$ as the set of resample sequences $(r_\ell)$ such that for all $j$ which has $a_j=\text{res}$ we have that $i_j$ appears in $(r_\ell)$ but for $j'$-s which have $a_{j'}=\neg\text{res}$ we have that $i_{j'}$ never appears in $(r_\ell)$. 

    %\end{definition}    

    \begin{definition}[Conditional expected number of resamples]

    	For a slot configuration $C\subseteq[n]$ and $a\in\{\!\text{ever},\text{ never}\}^{n-|C|}$ we define the event $A^{(C,a)}:=\bigwedge_{j\in[n-|C|]}\{i_j\text{ has }a_j\text{ become }0\text{ before reaching }\mathbf{1}\}$,

    	where $i_j$ is the $j$-th vertex of $[n]\setminus C$.

    	Then we also define

    	$$R^{(C,a)}_b:=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings when started from inital state }b\}|A^{(C,a)}].$$

    \end{definition}     

    As in Mario's proof I use the observation that 

    \begin{align*}

    R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in\{0,1,1'\}^{n}} \rho_b \; R_{\bar{b}}(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)}(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}}\sum_{a\in\{\!\text{ever},\text{ never}\}^{n-|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)P_{C(f)}(A^{(C,a)})\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{a\in\{\!\text{ever},\text{ never}\}^{n-|C|}} \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)P_{C(f)}(A^{(C,a)}), 

    \end{align*}

    where we denote by $C\subseteq[n]$ a slot configuration, whereas $C(f)$ denotes the slots of $C$ filled with the particles described by $f$, while all other location in $[n]\setminus C$ are set to $1$. 

    When we write $R_{C(f)}$ we mean $R_{C(\bar{f})}$, i.e., replace $1'$-s with $1$-s. Since the notation is already heavy we dropped the bar from $f$, as it is clear from the context. Finally by $P_{C(f)}(A^{(C,a)})$ we denote the probability that the event $A^{(C,a)}$ holds.

    As in Definition for $j\in[n-|C|]$ let $i_j$ denote the $j$-th index in $[n]\setminus C$.

    Suppose that $a$ is such that there are two indices $j_1\neq j_2$ such that 

    $a_{j_1}=\text{never}=a_{j_2}$, moreover the sets $\{i_{j_1}+1,\ldots, i_{j_2}-1\}$ and $\{i_{j_2}+1,\ldots, i_{j_1}-1\}$ partition $C$ non-trivially, and we denote by $C_l$,$C_r$ the corresponding partitions. 

    I wanted to prove that

    \begin{equation}\label{eq:conditionalCancellation}

		\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)=0,

    \end{equation}    

    based on the observation that for all $f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}$ we have 

    that 

    \begin{equation}\label{eq:keyIndependce}

    R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)=R^{{(C_l,a_l)}}_{C_l(f_l)}(p)+R^{{(C_r,a_r)}}_{C_r(f_r)}(p),

    \end{equation}

    where $f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}$ is defined as taking only the indices (and values) of $f$ corresponding to vertices of $C_l$, also $a_l\in[n-|C_l|]$ is defined such that $a$ and $a_l$ agree on vertices where $a$ is defined, and on the vertices where $a$ is not defined, i.e., the vertices of $C_r$ we define $a_l$ to contain ``never". We define things analogously for $f_r$ and $a_r$. 

    The reason why \eqref{eq:keyIndependce} holds is that as before the two halves of the cycle are conditionally independent because neither $i_{j_1}$ nor $i_{j_2}$ can become $0$. To be more precise each resample sequence $\left(C(f)\rightarrow \mathbf{1} \right)\in A^{(C,a)}$ can be uniquely decomposed to resample sequences $\left(C_l(f_l)\rightarrow \mathbf{1}\right)\in A^{(C_l,a_l)}$ and $\left(C_r(f_r)\rightarrow \mathbf{1}\right)\in A^{(C_r,a_r)}$. The sum of probabilities of the set of resample sequences $\{r\}$ which have decomposition $(r_l,r_r)$ have probability which is the product of the probabilities of $r_l$ and $r_r$ as shown in the proof of Claim~\ref{claim:expectationsum}. This proves that the set of all resample sequences $\left(C(f)\rightarrow \mathbf{1}\right)\in A^{(C,a)}$ for our purposes can be viewed as a product set with product probability distribution. Therefore the halves can be treated independently and so the expectation values just add up. 

    From here I wanted to mimic Mario's proof:

    \begin{align*}

    \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)&=

    \sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}} \sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_r|}}  (-1)^{|f_l|+|f_r|}p^{|C_l|+|C_r|} \left( R^{{(C_l,a_l)}}_{C_l(f_l)}(p) + R^{{(C_r,a_r)}}_{C_r(f_l)}(p) \right)\\

    &= p^{|C|}\sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}} (-1)^{|f_l|} R^{{(C_l,a_l)}}_{C_l(f_l)}(p) \sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_r|}} (-1)^{|f_r|} \\

    &\quad + p^{|C|}\sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_r|}} (-1)^{|f_r|} R^{{(C_r,a_r)}}_{C_r(f_r)}(p) \sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}} (-1)^{|f_l|} \\

    &= 0.

    \end{align*}

    The nasty issue which I did not realise that the missing term $P_{C(f)}(A^{(C,a)})$ is non-constant: even though the event $A^{(C,a)}$ is independent of $f$ the probability $P_{C(f)}(A^{(C,a)})=P_{C(f_l)}(A^{(C_l,a_l)})\cdot P_{C(f_r)}(A^{(C_r,a_r)})$ is not and so the above breaks down.

    Observe that if \eqref{eq:conditionalCancellation} would hold for configurations that cut the slot configuration to two halves it would imply that the only non-zero contribution comes from pairs $(C,a)$ such that $C\cup\{i_j:a_j=\text{ever}\}$ is connected. This is because if this set is not connected, then either we can cut $C$ to two halves non-trivially along ``never" vertices, or there is an island of $\text{ever}$ vertices separated from any slots, and therefore from any $0$-s. This latter case has zero contribution since we cannot set these indices to $0$, without reaching them by some resamplings, and thereby building a path of $0$-s leading there.

    If $|C\cup\{i_j:a_j=\text{ever}\}|\geq k+1$ then all contribution has a power at least $k+1$ in $p$ since $(C,a)$ requires the prior appearance of at least $k+1$ particles. If $n\geq k+1$ than all $(C,a)$ such that $|C\cup\{i_j:a_j=\text{ever}\}|\leq k$ appears exactly $n$ times, since $(C,a)$ cannot be translationally invariant. Moreover the quantity $R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)$ is independent of $n$ due to the conditioning that every resampling happens on a connected component of length at most $k<n$. This would prove that $a_k^{(n)}$ is constant for $n\geq k+1$. The same arguments would directly translate to the torus and other translationally invariant objects, so we could go higher dimensional as Mario suggested.

    Questions:

    \begin{itemize}

    	\item Is it possible to somehow fix this proof?

    	\item In view of this (false) proof, can we better characterise $a_k^{(k+1)}$?

    	\item Why did Mario's and Tom's simulation show that for fixed $C$ the contribution coefficients have constant sign? Is it relevant for proving \ref{it:pos}-\ref{it:geq}?

    	\item Can we prove the conjectured formula for $a_k^{(3)}$?		

    \end{itemize} 

\begin{comment}

    \subsection{Sketch of the proof of the linear bound \ref{it:const}}

    Let us interpret $[n]$ as the vertices of a length-$n$ cycle, and interpret operations on vertices mod $n$ s.t. $n+1\equiv 1$ and $1-1\equiv n$.

    \begin{definition}[Resample sequences]

		A sequence of indices $(r_\ell)=(r_1,r_2,\ldots,r_k)\in[n]^k$ is called resample sequence if our procedure performs $k$ consequtive resampling, where the first resampling of the procedure resamples around the mid point $r_1$ the second around $r_2$ and so on. Let $RS(k)$ the denote the set of length $k$ resample sequences, and let $RS=\cup_{k\in\mathbb{N}}RS(k)$.

    \end{definition}

    \begin{definition}[Constrained resample sequence]\label{def:constrainedRes}

    	Let $C\subseteq[n]$ denote a slot configuration, and let $a\in\{\text{res},\neg\text{res}\}^{n-|C|}$, where the elements correspond to labels ``resampled" vs. ``not resampled" respectively. 

    	For $j\in[n-|C|]$ let $i_j$ denote the $j$-th index in $[n]\setminus C$.

		We define the set $A^{(C,a)}\subseteq RS$ as the set of resample sequences $(r_\ell)$ such that for all $j$ which has $a_j=\text{res}$ we have that $i_j$ appears in $(r_\ell)$ but for $j'$-s which have $a_{j'}=\neg\text{res}$ we have that $i_{j'}$ never appears in $(r_\ell)$. 

    \end{definition}    

    \begin{definition}[Expected number of resamples]

		For $b\in\{0,1\}^n$ we define 

		$$R_b=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings when started from inital state }b\}],$$

		and for $(C,a)$ as in the previous definition we also define

		$$R^{(C,a)}_b=\mathbb{E}[\#\{\text{resamplings }\in A^{(C,a)} \text{ when started from inital state }b\}].$$

		Here we mean by the latter that after each resampling we check whether the sequence of resamplings so far is in $A^{(C,a)}$, if yes we count it, otherwise we do not count.

    \end{definition}     

    As in Mario's proof I use the observation that 

    \begin{align*}

    R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in\{0,1,1'\}^{n}} \rho_b \; R_{\bar{b}}(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)}(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}}\sum_{a\in\{\text{res},\neg\text{res}\}^{n-|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{a\in\{\text{res},\neg\text{res}\}^{n-|C|}} \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p), 

    \end{align*}

    where we denote by $C\subseteq[n]$ a slot configuration, whereas $C(f)$ denotes the slots of $C$ filled with the particles described by $f$, while all other location in $[n]\setminus C$ are set to $1$. 

	When we write $R_{C(f)}$ we mean $R_{C(\bar{f})}$, i.e., replace $1'$-s with $1$-s. Since the notation is already heavy we dropped the bar from $f$, as it is clear from the context.

    As in Definition~\ref{def:constrainedRes} for $j\in[n-|C|]$ let $i_j$ denote the $j$-th index in $[n]\setminus C$.

    Suppose that $a$ is such that there are two indices $j_1\neq j_2$ such that 

    $a_{j_1}=\neg\text{res}=a_{j_2}$, moreover the sets $\{i_{j_1}+1,\ldots, i_{j_2}-1\}$ and $\{i_{j_2}+1,\ldots, i_{j_1}-1\}$ partition $C$ non-trivially, and we denote by $C_l$,$C_r$ the corresponding partitions. 

    We claim that 

    $$\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)=0.$$

	This is based on the observation that that for all $f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}$ we have 

    that 

    \begin{equation}\label{eq:keyIndependceWrong}

    R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)=R^{{(C_l,a_l)}}_{C_l(f_l)}(p)+R^{{(C_r,a_r)}}_{C_r(f_r)}(p),

    \end{equation}

    where $f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}$ is defined as taking only the indices (and values) of $f$ corresponding to vertices of $C_l$, also $a_l\in[n-|C_l|]$ is defined such that $a$ and $a_l$ agree on vertices where $a$ is defined, and on the vertices where $a$ is not defined, i.e., the vertices of $C_r$ we define $a_l$ to contain $\neg\text{res}$. We define things analogously for $f_r$ and $a_r$.

    The reason why \eqref{eq:keyIndependceWrong} holds is as before that the two halves of the cycle are conditionally independent because neither $i_{j_1}$ nor $i_{j_2}$ are resampled. One could probably also argue similarly as Tom's grid figure shows. 

    From here the proof goes just as in Mario's proof:

    \begin{align*}

    \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)&=

    \sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}} \sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_r|}}  (-1)^{|f_l|+|f_r|}p^{|C_l|+|C_r|} \left( R^{{(C_l,a_l)}}_{C_l(f_l)}(p) + R^{{(C_r,a_r)}}_{C_r(f_l)}(p) \right)\\

    &= p^{|C|}\sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}} (-1)^{|f_l|} R^{{(C_l,a_l)}}_{C_l(f_l)}(p) \sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_r|}} (-1)^{|f_r|} \\

    &\quad + p^{|C|}\sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_r|}} (-1)^{|f_r|} R^{{(C_r,a_r)}}_{C_r(f_r)}(p) \sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|C_l|}} (-1)^{|f_l|} \\

    &= 0.

    \end{align*}

    Observe that it implies that the only non-zero contribution comes from pairs $(C,a)$ such that $C\cup\{i_j:a_j=\text{res}\}$ is connected. This is because if this set is not connected, then either we can cut $C$ to two halves non-trivially along $\neg\text{res}$ vertices, or there is an island of $\text{res}$ vertices separated from any slots, and therefore from any $0$-s. This latter case has zero contribution since we cannot resample these indices without first setting them to $0$, but under the conditions they can be never reached by any resampling, therefore they remain $1$ always.

    If $|C\cup\{i_j:a_j=\text{res}\}|\geq k+1$ then all contribution has a power at least $k+1$ in $p$ since $(C,a)$ requires the prior appearance of at least $k+1$ particles. If $n\geq k+1$ than all $(C,a)$ such that $|C\cup\{i_j:a_j=\text{res}\}|\leq k$ appears exactly $n$ times, since $(C,a)$ cannot be translationally invariant. Moreover the quantity $R^{{(C,a)}}_{C(f)}(p)$ is independent of $n$ due to the conditioning that every resampling happens on a connected component of length at most $k<n$. This proves that $a_k^{(n)}$ is constant for $n\geq k+1$.

    Note that the heart of the proof is \eqref{eq:keyIndependceWrong}, so this is what we should double check.    

	The same arguments directly translate to the torus and other translationally invariant objects, so we can go higher dimensional :-) as Mario suggested.

	Questions:

	\begin{itemize}

		\item In view of this proof, can we better characterise $a_k^{(k+1)}$?

		\item Why did Mario's and Tom's simulation show that for fixed $C$ the contribution coefficients have constant sign? Is it relevant for proving \ref{it:pos}-\ref{it:geq}?

		\item Can we prove the conjectured formula for $a_k^{(3)}$?		

	\end{itemize} 

\end{comment}

\begin{comment}    

    \begin{definition}[Neighborhood]

	   	For the length-$n$ cycle we identify sites with $[n]$. 

	   	For a subset $S\subseteq [n]$ we define the $k$ neighborhood of $S$ as

	   	$N_k(S):=\cup_{s\in S} \{s-k,s-k+1,\ldots,s+k\}$ where numbers are interpreted mod $n$ and we represent the $\equiv 0$ class by $n$).

	\end{definition}

	\begin{definition}[Blocks and Gaps]

	   	For a configuration $C\subseteq [n]$ we call the connected components of $[n]\setminus N_1(C)$ the gaps. We denote by $m_C$ the number of gaps.

	   	We call a non-empty subset $B\subset C$ a block if $N_3(B)\cap C=B$ and $B$ is minimal, i.e., there is no proper subset $\emptyset\neq B'\subsetneq B$ satisfying $N_3(B')\cap C=B'$. 

	   	Observe that whenever $m_C\geq 2$ the number of blocks is the same as the number of gaps.  

    \end{definition}

    \begin{definition}[Crossings]

    	We say that a run (path) of the resampling procedure crosses $i\in[n]$ if there is ever a $0$ in $N_1({i})$ during the run.

    \end{definition}

    \begin{definition}[Enumerating gaps and mid points]

		Let $G_1,G_2,\ldots, G_{m_C}$ be an enumeration of the gaps respecting the cyclic ordering, and let $g_i$ be the middle element of $G_i$, if there are two middle elements we choose the smaller according to the cyclic ordering. (If $m_C=1$ and $G_1=[n]$ let $g_1=1$.)

		If $m_C\geq 2$ then for all $i\in[m_C]$ let $B_i$ be the block between $G_i$ and $G_{i+1}$.

    \end{definition}

    As in Mario's proof I use the observation that 

    \begin{align*}

    R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{b\in\{0,1,1'\}^{n}} \rho_b \; R_b(p)\\

    &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R_{C(f)}(p),

    \end{align*}

    where we denote by $C\subseteq[n]$ a slot configuration, whereas $C(f)$ denotes the slots of $C$ filled with the particles described by $f$. 

    For $a\in\{\text{crossed},\text{not crossed}\}^m$ we also introduce the notation $R^a_{C(f)}(p):=\mathbb{E}(\#\{\text{resamples before reaching }\mathbbm{1} \text{ from } C(f)\}|\bigwedge_{j\in[m_C]}g_j \text{ is } a_j)\cdot\mathbb{P}(\bigwedge_{j\in[m_C]}g_j \text{ is } a_j)$, which we define as $0$ if the conditioning event has $0$ probability. 

    Since $$R_{C(f)}(p)=\sum_{a\in\{\text{crossed},\text{not crossed}\}^{m_C}}R^a_{C(f)}(p),$$ we can further rewrite the expectation as

    \begin{align*}

	    R^{(n)}(p) &= \frac{1}{n}\sum_{C\subseteq [n]}\sum_{a\in\{\text{crossed},\text{not crossed}\}^{m_C}}\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^a_{C(f)}(p).

    \end{align*}

    Suppose that $a$ contains at least two ``not crossed'', the we claim that $\sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^a_{C(f)}(p)=0$. Let $j_1\neq j_2$ be two distinct indexes such that $a_{j_1}$ and $a_{j_2}$ are both saying ``not crossed''. Let $B_l:=B_{j_1}\cup B_{j_1+1}\cup\cdots\cup B_{j_2-1}$ and $B_r:=B_{j_2}\cup B_{j_2+1}\cup\cdots\cup B_{j_1-1}$ (again we interpret indexes mod $m_C$).

    Then we claim that for all $f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}$ we have 

    that 

    \begin{equation}\label{eq:keyIndependceOld}

		R^a_{C(f)}(p)=R^a_{B_l(f)}(p)+R^a_{B_r(f)}(p).

    \end{equation} 

    The reason is as before that the halves are independent because neither $g_{j_1}$ nor $g_{j_2}$ is crossed. One could probably similarly prove it as the grid figure shows. 

    From here the proof goes just as in Mario's proof:

    \begin{align*}

    \sum_{f\in\{0,1'\}^{|C|}} \rho_{C(f)} R^a_{C(f)}(p)&=

    \sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|B_l|}} \sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|B_r|}}  (-1)^{|f_l|+|f_r|}p^{|B_l|+|B_r|} \left( R^a_{B_l(f)} + R^a_{B_r(f)} \right)\\

    &= p^{|C|}\sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|B_l|}} (-1)^{|f_l|} R^a_{B_l(f)} \sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|B_r|}} (-1)^{|f_r|} \\

    &\quad + p^{|C|}\sum_{f_r\in\{0,1'\}^{|B_r|}} (-1)^{|f_r|} R^a_{B_r(f)} \sum_{f_l\in\{0,1'\}^{|B_l|}} (-1)^{|f_l|} \\

    &= 0 

    \end{align*}

    From this it follows that the only contribution comes from paths that cross all but one (or all) of the mid gaps. This then implies that it is enough to consider $\mathcal{O}(k)$ length configurations. (We define the length of a configuration $C$ as $n-\max_{j\in[m_C]}|G_j|$.)

    Note that the heart of the proof is \eqref{eq:keyIndependceOld}, so this is what we should double check.

    In fact I think the independence that we use in \eqref{eq:keyIndependceOld} can be also proven when we define a crossing as crossing the actual point, and not its $1$-neighborhood. It then would make it possible to define blocks as consecutive slacks. Also then we could actually use all points of the gaps not only the mid points. The requirement for the cancellation would be that there are ``not crossed'' labels from at least two distinct gaps. This would probably lead to the optimal $k+1$ bound giving the actual statement \ref{it:const}. 

    Speculation: The $n=k$ case would then probably not work because the all $0$ starting configuration is invariant under rotations.

    To actually go below $2k$ one needs to be careful, because there are periodic configurations that are invariant under some rotations causing double counting issues. This can be probably resolved by showing that when a pattern becomes periodic for some $n$ it actually produces periodicity times more expectation due to symmetry. But this is all just speculation.

\end{comment}

	\bibliographystyle{alpha}

	\bibliography{Resample.bib}

\end{document}