&\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 for an infinite line (or a cirlce where $n$ is assumed 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 $(3p-6p^2 + 3p^3)$ the state goes to $\framebox{$101$}$ and then the expected number of resamplings is $1+R_{101}$. Note that the actual term in the recursive formula should be

$$(3p-6p^2+3p^3)\cdot\left( \sum_{\xi\in\paths{101}} \mathbb{P}[\xi] \cdot \left( 1 + |\xi|\right) \right) = (3p-6p^2+3p^3)\left( p_\mathrm{tot} + R_{101} \right)$$

where $p_\mathrm{tot} := \sum_{\xi\in\paths{b}} \mathbb{P}[\xi]$. However, since the state space is finite (for finite $n$) and there is always a non-vanishing probability to go to $\mathbf{1}$, we know that $p_\mathrm{tot}=1$, i.e. the process terminates almost surely.

\newpage

\subsection{Weak cancellation proof}

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} or \ref{def:independence2}). 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 $R_{b_1\land b_2}$. Point $(i,j)$ in the grid indicates that $i$ steps of $\xi_1$ have been done and $j$ steps of $\xi_2$ have been done. At every point (except the top and right edges of the grid) 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 a certain 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. The weight of such a new path $\xi\in\paths{b_1\land b_2}$ is $p_\mathrm{grid}\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_1]\cdot\mathbb{P}[\xi_2]$ where $p_\mathrm{grid}$ is the weight of the path in the diagram. By induction one can show that the sum over the $\binom{|\xi_1|+|\xi_2|}{|\xi_1|}$ different terms $p_\mathrm{grid}$ is $1$.

\begin{center}

\includegraphics{diagram_paths.pdf}

\end{center}

 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 $\sum_{a\in\{0,1\}^l} (-1)^{|a|} = 0$.

\newpage

\subsection{Proving the strong cancellation claim}

It is useful to introduce some new notation:

\begin{definition}[Events conditioned on starting state] \label{def:conditionedevents}

    For any state $b\in\{0,1\}^n$ and any event $A$ (where an event is a subset of all possible paths of the Markov Chain), 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*}

\end{definition}

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

    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.

\end{definition}

\begin{figure}

	\begin{center}

    	\includegraphics{diagram_groups.pdf}

    \end{center}

    \caption{\label{fig:separatedgroups} Illustration of setup of Lemma \ref{lemma:eventindependence}. Here $b_1,b_2\in\{0,1\}^n$ are bitstrings such that all zeroes of $b_1$ and all zeroes of $b_2$ are separated by two indices $j_1,j_2$.}

\end{figure}

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

    \begin{align*}

        &=

        \; \cdot \;

        &=

        \; + \;

    \end{align*}

    up to any order in $p$.

\end{lemma}

\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.

    \begin{align*}

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

        &=

        \; \cdot \;

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

        &=

    \end{align*}

\end{proof}

\begin{comment}

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*}

\end{comment}

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 $0$. Define $P_I(A)=P_{b_I}(A)$ where the latter is defined in Definition \ref{def:conditionedevents}, i.e. the probability of seeing a resample sequence from $A$ when the whole procedure started in state $b_I$. 

\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.

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

\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}

	The proof uses induction on $|I|$. For $|I|=1$ the statement is easy, since every resample sequence that resamples vertex $0$ to zero must produce at least $I_{\max}$ zeroes in-between.

    Induction step: For an event $A$ and $k>0$ let us denote $A_k = A\cap\left(\cap_{j=0}^{k-1} \mathrm{Z}^{(j)}\right)\cap \mathrm{NZ}^{(k)}$, i.e. $A_k$ is the event $A$ \emph{and} ``Each vertex in $0,1,2,\ldots, k-1$ becomes $0$ at some point before termination (either by resampling or initialisation), but vertex $k$ does not''. Observe that these events form a partition, so $Z^{(0)}=\dot{\bigcup}_{k=1}^{\infty}Z^{(0)}_k$.

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

	\begin{align*}

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

		&=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}P(Z^{(0)}_k) \tag{the events are a partition}\\

        &=\sum_{k\in \mathbb{N}\setminus I}P(Z^{(0)}_k) \tag{$\mathbb{P}(A_k)=0$ for $k\in I$}\\

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

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

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

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

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

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

        \left(P_{I'_{>k}}(\mathrm{NZ}^{(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}}(Z^{(0)}_k)\cdot

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

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

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

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

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

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

		&=P_{I'}(Z^{(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{Z^{(P_{\min}-1)}}\cap\overline{Z^{(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{Z^{(P_{\min}-1)}}\cap\overline{Z^{(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.

	I think the same arguments would translate to the torus and other translationally invariant spaces, so we could go higher dimensional as Mario suggested. Then I think one would need to replace $|S_{><}|$ by the minimal number $k$ such that there is a $C$ set for which $S\cup C$ is connected. I am not entirely sure how to generalise Lemma~\ref{lemma:probIndep} though, which has key importance in the present proof.

    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.