text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the Standard Model with $`SU(2)\times U(1)`$ as the gauge group of electroweak interactions, both the quarks and leptons are assigned to be left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets. The quark mass eigenstates differ from the weak eigenstates, and the matrix relating these bases was defined for six quarks and given an explicit parametrization by Kobayashi and Maskawa  in 1973. It generalizes the four-quark case, where the matrix is parametrized by a single angle, the Cabibbo angle .

By convention, the mixing is usually expressed in terms of a $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`V`$ operating on the charge $`e/3`$ quark mass eigenstates ($`d`$, $`s`$, and $`b`$):

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}d^{}\\ s^{}\\ b^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}V_{ud}& V_{us}& V_{ub}\\ V_{cd}& V_{cs}& V_{cb}\\ V_{td}& V_{ts}& V_{tb}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}d\\ s\\ b\end{array}\right).$$
(1)
The matrix V is unitary, and this Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) matrix can physically be fully specified by four real parameters. These can be taken to be three “rotation” angles and one phase. CP violation has a natural place and occurs if the phase is not $`0^o`$ or $`180^o`$ and the other angles are not $`0^o`$ or $`90^o`$, i.e., if there is mixing between each pair of generations of quarks and there is a non-trivial phase.

We know experimentally that all three angles that characterize the CKM matrix are small but non-zero. There is an expectation that the single non-trivial phase should be non-zero as well. (We will return at the end to the status of showing whether the phase is non-zero.) If CP violation arises from the CKM matrix, there is both a natural scale and a special pattern for CP-violating effects (and for flavor-changing-neutral-current effects more generally). These are made manifest in the theoretical predictions for various decay and mixing processes for B mesons found throughout the Proceedings of this conference.

The major outstanding question with regard to CP violation is no longer what was raised at conferences for many years, namely “What is the origin of CP violation?” We have an origin in the CKM matrix of the Standard Model. It is not unreasonable that this accounts for most of the CP-violating effects observed to date and to be observed in the near future. Rather, the question to be answered by experiment and theory in the coming decade is: “Are there CP-violating effects that do not arise from the CKM matrix and instead come from physics beyond the Standard Model.”

Thus we expect that the situation we will soon find ourselves in is one where the largest measured CP-violating effects arise from the Standard Model, with possible small contributions from new physics. Consequently, to establish the existence of new physics effects we will need to know the Standard Model effects accurately. Fortunately, as the discussion that follows shows, we are moving into an era of “precision” CKM measurements. This will hopefully give us the elements of the CKM matrix with sufficient accuracy that, together with improved theoretical calculations of hadronic matrix elements, we will be able to pin down the Standard Model contributions and establish the presence of possible new physics.

## 2 The Large CKM Matrix Elements

The other members of the panel discussion on the CKM matrix, M. Artuso , P. Faccioli , J. Rosner , and A. Stocchi , have concentrated their contributions on analyses of the small CKM matrix elements involving the third generation b-quark and t-quark or to making overall fits to the whole matrix. In this section I discuss some of the developments involving the CKM matrix elements connecting the first and second generation quarks. These follow closely the review by K. Kleinknecht, B. Renk, and myself in the Review of Particle Physics . Detailed references can be found there.

* The element $`|V_{ud}|`$ has been most accurately determined through analysis of nuclear beta decays that involve transitions between states with zero spin for which only the weak vector current contributes. Taking account of higher order radiative corrections is essential, and the remaining debate centers on these corrections and on whether there is a change in charge-symmetry violation for quarks inside nuclear matter at the tenths of a percent level. Taking both these uncertainties, a value of $`|V_{ud}|=0.9740\pm 0.0010`$ is quoted . While the above has been the standard method to obtain $`|V_{ud}|`$ for years, recently there has been an improvement in precision of the value obtained from neutron decays. This has fewer theoretical uncertainties, but relies on both the value of $`g_A/g_V`$ and on the neutron lifetime. Experimental progress has been made on the former quantity using very highly polarized cold neutrons together with improved detectors. This results in $`|V_{ud}|=0.9728\pm 0.0012`$ from neutron decay, and averaging the two independent results for $`|V_{ud}|`$ gives the value $`|V_{ud}|=0.9735\pm 0.0008`$ quoted in Ref. . This is about two sigma lower than expected from unitarity of the first row of the CKM matrix, and therefore bears watching.
* The matrix element $`|V_{us}|`$, the sine of the Cabibbo angle, is best determined from analysis of $`K_{e3}`$ decays, which yield the value $`|V_{us}|=0.2196\pm 0.0023`$ . Analysis of hyperon decays has larger theoretical uncertainties and gives a result for $`|V_{us}|`$ that is not inconsistent. Given the progress in experimental techniques and our interest in a more precise check of unitarity, a more modern experiment and analysis would be quite worthwhile.
* In principle, one could determine $`|V_{cd}|`$ from charm decays to non-strange particles, but we lack both high statistics data and accurate theoretical input on the relevant form factors. The most accurate value presently comes from neutrino and antineutrino production of charm off valence $`d`$ quarks. This yields $`|V_{cd}|=0.224\pm 0.016`$ .
* Values of $`|V_{cs}|`$ can be obtained from neutrino production of charm, but they are dependent on assumptions about the strange-quark density in the parton sea. More accurate values can be obtained from charm decays to strange particles, and in particular $`D\overline{K}e^+\nu _e`$. Here the primary source of error is in the theoretical estimation of the associated form factor and leads to the value $`|V_{cs}|=1.04\pm 0.16`$ . Significant progress here has recently come from the high energy regime at LEP, where direct measurements  of $`|V_{cs}|`$ in charm-tagged $`W`$ decays give $`|V_{cs}|=0.97\pm 0.09(\mathrm{stat}.)\pm 0.07(\mathrm{syst}.)`$. This new technique already gives a value with a comparable error bar to that from D decays. Furthermore, the $`W`$ decays into all possible pairs of first and second generation quark-antiquark pairs, weighted by the squares of the relevant CKM matrix elements. The result from LEP is that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i,j}|V_{ij}|^2=2.032\pm 0.032`$, where the sum extends over $`i=u,c`$ and $`j=d,s,b`$. Since five of the six CKM matrix elements involved are well measured or contribute negligibly to the sum of the squares, this measurement can also be used to obtain a precision measurement of $`|V_{cs}|=0.9891\pm 0.016`$ . The error bar has been reduced by an order of magnitude from that obtained using charm decays!

## 3 Overall Determination of the CKM Matrix

Looking back at the present limits on the accuracy in determining the large CKM matrix elements, we quickly see that it is primarily not a question of experimental statistics. Rather, it is the systematics and especially the “theoretical systematics” that limit us. This becomes even more obvious when we consider the determination of $`|V_{ub}|,|V_{cb}|`$, and $`|V_{td}|`$. Time and again we need theoretical calculations of matrix elements or parameters that relate weak amplitudes at the quark level to those at the hadron level, whether it be for inclusive or exclusive decay modes.

Theoretical errors in such cases are hard to estimate. It is one thing to vary the parameters that enter a given calculation over a reasonable range and thereby deduce how the final result will vary within a given model. This is usually easy to do and is a minimal estimate of the potential error. It is quite another matter to estimate the effects of what has been left out of the model or theory, or to know the accuracy of an ab initio assumption such as quark-hadron duality in a new situation.

Furthermore, such errors are generally not Gaussian. It still makes sense to quote a reasonable range for a given CKM matrix element that corresponds roughly to “$`1\sigma `$” or to “$`90\%`$ confidence level,” but combining several such measurements should be done with great care. As was pointed out during the panel discussion, this can have profound physics consequences in making an overall fit to the CKM matrix, as those with “small” errors would say that we are already forced to a non-trivial unitarity triangle of $`V_{ub}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, $`V_{td}`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{12}V_{cb}`$ in the complex plane (and therefore a non-trivial phase in the CKM matrix and CP-violation in the Standard Model) just from knowledge of the lengths of the triangle’s sides. Caveat emptor.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I thank the organizers of Beauty 2000 for their excellent arrangements for the meeting and enhancing the interplay of theory and experiment at an opportune time. This research work is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG02-91ER40682.


format: text

text:
# Random walks with badly approximable numbers

## 1. Introduction

Fix $`\overline{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _d)`$, a $`d`$-tuple of real numbers, not all rational. Consider a random walk on the circle $`S^1`$ which proceeds as follows: at each step one of the $`\alpha _i`$ is chosen (with probability $`1/d`$) and the walk moves forwards or backwards (with probability $`1/2`$) on the circle by an angle $`2\pi \alpha _i`$. The distribution of this walk converges to the uniform (Haar) measure on $`S^1`$; in this paper, we investigate how quickly this convergence can take place.

To quantify this, identify $`S^1`$ with the unit circle in $`𝐑^2`$, and let $`Q`$ be the probability measure supported on $`\{e^{\pm 2\pi i\alpha _j}\}`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},d`$, with equal weights $`1/2d`$. If at time $`k=0`$ the random walk starts at $`1`$, then the convolution power $`Q^k`$ represents the probability distribution of the random walk at time $`k`$. In this framework, we study how quickly $`Q^k`$ approaches $`U`$, the uniform (Haar) measure on the unit circle. Define the discrepancy $`D(P)`$ of a probability measure on $`S^1`$ by

(1)
$$D(P)=\underset{I}{sup}|P(I)U(I)|$$

where $`I`$ represents any connected interval on $`S^1`$. The discrepancy $`D(P)`$ measures how uniform $`P`$ is, and metrizes weak-\* convergence to the uniform distribution on $`S^1`$. The usual definition of discrepancy found in the study of uniform distribution of sequences mod 1 (see ) is a special case of our definition, by letting $`P`$ be an equally weighted measure on a sequence.

We seek bounds on how quickly $`D(Q^k)`$ diminishes as a function of the step size $`k`$ and the numbers $`\alpha _i`$. Clearly the convergence will not occur if all $`\alpha _i`$ are rational.

The case $`d=1`$ reduces to a random walk generated by one irrational rotation; this problem was posed by Diaconis in \[3, p. 34\]. Su  obtained discrepancy bounds for this walk, showing that it converges most quickly when $`\alpha `$ is a quadratic irrational. In that case,

$$\frac{C_1}{\sqrt{k}}D(Q^k)\frac{C_2}{\sqrt{k}}$$

for constants $`C_1,C_2`$ which can be determined given $`\alpha `$. We investigate whether the inclusion of additional generators can speed up the convergence of this walk. In particular we show that if $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is a badly approximable vector in $`𝐑^d`$, then the random walk generated by the $`\overline{\alpha }`$ converges as fast as possible for a set of $`d`$ generators. In Theorem 1 we obtain matching upper and lower bounds:

$$\frac{C_1}{k^{d/2}}D(Q^k)\frac{C_2}{k^{d/2}}.$$

We also show how the constants depend on $`\overline{\alpha }`$.

This result is reminiscent of results in the theory of uniform distribution of sequences mod 1; however, there is a notable lack of any log terms in the upper and lower bounds. To compare for $`d=1`$, it is known (e.g., see ) that for a fixed irrational $`\alpha 𝐑`$ the discrepancy of the sequence $`\{\alpha ,2\alpha ,3\alpha ,\mathrm{},k\alpha \}`$ in $`𝐑mod1`$ falls as $`\mathrm{log}k/k`$ up to constant factors. For our corresponding random walk, it is not a surprise that the exponent gets halved, but it is quite surprising that the log term disappears.

While the total variation metric is more frequently used to study random walk convergence (e.g., see ), it is not appropriate for this walk, because $`Q^k`$ is a finitely supported measure and its total variation distance from $`U`$ remains at 1 for all $`k`$. Moreover, we favor the use of discrepancy over other common metrics on probabilities (e.g., Wasserstein, Prokhorov) because bounding techniques for such metrics are not well developed, and the use of Fourier bounds for the discrepancy metric admits the possibility of sharp analysis. An analogous discrepancy metric may be used to study random walks on other spaces, e.g., . For a survey of bounds relating various metrics, see .

We also remark that while the literature contains many results on rates of convergence for random walks on finite groups (e.g., see ), and a few results for walks on infinite compact groups (,), very little has been done for discrete walks on infinite compact groups, mainly due to lack of bounding techniques for appropriate metrics. Our analysis of the $`d`$-generator random walk on the circle reveals that bounds for the discrepancy metric are refined enough to yield sharp rates of convergence; this and  are the only sharp results we are aware of in this direction.

## 2. Random Walk Bounds

Throughout this paper, let $`𝐱`$ denote the Euclidean distance of $`𝐱𝐑^d`$ to the nearest integer lattice point (the dimension inherent in the notation $``$ is to be understood by context). Given an arbitrary $`d`$-tuple $`\overline{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _d)`$, the Dirichlet Approximation Theorem \[4, p.68\] implies that there exists a constant $`B=B(\overline{\alpha })`$ such that for any $`q`$, there exists a positive integer $`Nq^d`$ such that

(2)
$$N\overline{\alpha }<\frac{B}{q}\frac{B}{N^{1/d}}.$$

In fact for any $`d`$-tuple $`\overline{\alpha }`$, the above bound holds for $`B=\sqrt{d}`$.

The $`d`$-tuple $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is said to be badly approximable if there exists a constant $`\beta =\beta (\overline{\alpha })>0`$ such that for all positive integers $`N`$,

(3)
$$N\overline{\alpha }\frac{\beta }{N^{1/d}}.$$

We refer to $`B`$ and $`\beta `$ as approximation constants for $`\overline{\alpha }`$. The approximation constant $`\beta `$ is only defined for badly approximable $`\overline{\alpha }`$.

Our main result is the following:

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose $`\overline{\alpha }=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _d)`$ is badly approximable. Let $`Q`$ denote the generating measure of the random walk on $`S^1`$ generated by the $`d`$ generators $`\alpha _i`$. Then the discrepancy of the $`k`$-th step probability distribution of the walk satisfies

(4)
$$\frac{C_1}{k^{d/2}}D(Q^k)\frac{C_2}{k^{d/2}}$$

with constants that depend on $`d`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$:

$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`0.0947(\sqrt{d}/5B)^d`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`19.857(d\sqrt{d}/\beta )^d`$
where $`B,\beta `$ are approximation constants for $`\overline{\alpha }`$. The lower bound holds for walks generated by an arbitrary $`d`$-tuple.

Therefore, among all $`d`$-tuples, walks generated by badly approximable $`d`$-tuples converge the fastest. Note that the constants $`C_1,C_2`$ depend on the approximation constants of $`\overline{\alpha }`$. However since one may choose $`B=\sqrt{d}`$, it follows that $`C_10.0947(1/5)^d`$.

###### Proof.

We establish the lower bound using an inequality of Su  for the discrepancy of an arbitrary probability measure $`P`$ on $`S^1`$:

(5)
$$D(P)\left(\frac{2}{\pi ^2}\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{|\widehat{P}(m)|^2}{m^2}\right)^{1/2}.$$

Here $`\widehat{P}(m)`$ denotes the $`m`$-th Fourier coefficient of $`P`$ (viewed on $`𝐑`$ mod $`𝐙`$). Since every term is positive, we can use a dominant term in the sum as a lower bound.

The Fourier coefficients for the $`d`$-generator walk are

(6)
$$\widehat{Q}(m)=\underset{l=1}{\overset{d}{}}\frac{1}{2d}(e^{2\pi im\alpha _l}+e^{2\pi im\alpha _l})=\frac{1}{d}\underset{l=1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi m\alpha _l).$$

Since $`\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x)=\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x)12\pi ^2x^2`$, for any $`m`$ we have

(7)
$$\widehat{Q}(m)1\frac{2\pi ^2}{d}m\overline{\alpha }^2$$

The inequality $`(1x)^k1kx`$ holds for $`k1`$ and $`x1`$. Then

$$|\widehat{Q}(m)|^k1\frac{2\pi ^2k}{d}m\overline{\alpha }^2$$

as long as $`2\pi ^2km\overline{\alpha }^2/d<1`$. We ensure this by setting $`Z_1<1`$ (to be specified shortly) and let $`q=(2\pi ^2B^2k/Z_1d)^{1/2}`$. Then (2) implies there exists an integer $`mq^d`$ such that $`m\overline{\alpha }<B/q`$, which yields $`2\pi ^2km\overline{\alpha }^2/d<Z_1<1`$, as desired. (Note that $`q`$ was chosen to ensure $`|\widehat{Q}(m)|^k1Z_1`$.)

For this $`m`$ we use just the $`m`$-th term in (5), and since $`m<q^d`$ and $`\widehat{Q^k}(m)=\widehat{Q}^k(m)`$, we obtain

(8)
$$D(Q^k)\frac{\sqrt{2}|\widehat{Q}(m)|^k}{\pi m}C_1k^{d/2}$$

with

$$C_1=\frac{\sqrt{2}(1Z_1)}{\pi }\left(\frac{Z_1d}{2\pi ^2B^2}\right)^{d/2}.$$

Choosing $`Z_1=2\pi ^2/25<1`$, we recover the lower bound (4) of the theorem.

The upper bound is trickier to compute. We start with the Erdös-Turán inequality : given a probability measure $`P`$ on $`S^1`$, for any integer $`M`$,

(9)
$$D(P)\frac{4}{M+1}+\frac{4}{\pi }\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{|\widehat{P}(m)|}{m}$$

where $`\widehat{P}`$ represents the Fourier transform of $`P`$. Note that one may choose $`M`$ in the Erdös-Turán inequality so as to optimize the bound obtained.

Since $`|\mathrm{cos}(2\pi x)|142x^2`$ for all $`x𝐑`$, it follows from (6) that

$`|\widehat{Q}(m)|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{d}{}}}|\mathrm{cos}(2\pi m\alpha _l)|`$
$``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{4}{d}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{d}{}}}2m\alpha _l^2`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{d}}2m\overline{\alpha }^2).`$
In light of the Erdös-Turán inequality and $`\widehat{Q^k}(m)=\widehat{Q}^k(m)`$, we need to estimate a sum of the form

$$\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{|\widehat{Q}^k(m)|}{m}\underset{m=1}{\overset{M}{}}\frac{1}{m}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{4k}{d}2m\overline{\alpha }^2)=:S.$$

Since $`M`$ may be chosen freely, choose an integer $`M`$ such that

(10)
$$M\frac{1}{2}(\beta ^2k/d^3)^{d/2}<M+1.$$

Recall that $`\beta `$ is an approximability constant for $`\overline{\alpha }`$ from (3) and $`k`$ is the number of steps in the walk. The reason for this choice of $`M`$ will be evident later. Choose an integer $`J`$ such that

(11)
$$2^{J1}M2^J1.$$

The sum in $`S`$ may be grouped into $`J`$ cohorts of integers $`m[2^{j1},2^j1]`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},J`$. Within each such cohort, the use of inequality (3) yields $`2m\overline{\alpha }\beta /(2m)^{1/d}\beta /2^{(j+1)/d}`$. This says that the points of the sequence $`\{2m\overline{\alpha }\}`$ (mod 1) in the unit cube in $`𝐑^d`$ are bounded away from the corners of the unit cube. In fact, they are bounded away from each other, since if $`m_1,m_2[2^{j1},2^j1]`$, then

(12)
$$2(m_1m_2)\overline{\alpha }\beta /2^{(j+1)/d}$$

as well. Therefore if $`s=\beta /\sqrt{d}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{(j+1)/d}`$, then any box of side length $`s`$ can contain at most one of the multiples from the sequence $`\{2m\overline{\alpha }\}`$ (mod 1), $`m[2^{j1},2^j1]`$, with no such multiples in boxes containing the origin.

So divide up the unit $`d`$-cube into disjoint boxes of side length $`s`$ and sides parallel to the axes. In the worst case, all $`M`$ points are distributed in the boxes in the $`2^d`$ corners of the unit cube nearest the origin. The nearest points in such boxes (under the $`L_1`$ metric) are at integral multiples of $`s`$ and extend out in layers to distance at most $`M^{1/d}`$. A crude upper bound for the number of boxes whose nearest point is at $`L_1`$-distance $`ns`$ from the origin is $`(n+1)^{d1}`$, and in the Euclidean metric the nearest point in such boxes is at least distance $`ns/\sqrt{d}`$ from the origin. Hence we can bound $`S`$ by grouping first by cohorts, then by corners and layers:

$`S`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=2^{j1}}{\overset{2^j1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{4k}{d}}2m\overline{\alpha }^2)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}}2^d{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{M^{1/d}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(n+1)^{d1}}{2^{j1}}}\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{4k}{d}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2n^2}{d2^{2(j+1)/d}}})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2^d}{2^{j1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)^{d1}\mathrm{exp}(4n^2d2^{2(Jj1)/d}).`$
The second inequality used the bound $`2m\overline{\alpha }ns/\sqrt{d}`$ and the definition of $`s`$. The third inequality follows by noting $`kd^32^{2J/d}/\beta ^2`$ from the definitions of $`J`$ and $`M`$ in (10) and (11).

Using $`jJ`$, the log derivative of the expression of the innermost sum with respect to $`n`$ can be bounded:

$$\frac{d1}{n+1}8nd2^{2(Jj1)/d}\frac{d1}{n+1}8nd2^{2/d}\frac{d1}{2}d1$$

for all choices of $`n1`$ and $`d1`$. Hence the expression in the inner sum decreases geometrically (by at least ratio $`e^1`$) as $`j`$ increases, and so the inner sum is bounded by the first term (at $`n=1`$) times the constant $`Z_2=1/(1e^1)1.5820`$. Thus

$$S\underset{j=1}{\overset{J}{}}Z_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2dj}\mathrm{exp}(4d2^{2(Jj1)/d}).$$

This sum may be bounded by noting that the largest term occurs when $`j=J`$. For $`jJ`$, the log derivative of the terms with respect to $`j`$ is $`\mathrm{ln}2(1+82^{2(Jj1)/d})\mathrm{ln}2`$ for $`d1`$. Thus the sum decreases geometrically (with at least ratio $`1/2`$) as $`jJ`$ decreases, so the sum is therefore bounded by twice the final term at $`j=J`$:

(13) $`S`$ $``$ $`2Z_2\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}^{2dJ}\mathrm{exp}(4d2^{2/d})`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Z_22^{2d+1}\mathrm{exp}(4d2^{2/d})}{M+1}}{\displaystyle \frac{4.6559}{M+1}}`$
where the second inequality follows from (11), and the final inequality from noting that the numerator is greatest for $`d=1`$. Using the Erdös-Turán inequality we obtain the upper bound

$$D(Q^k)\frac{4}{M+1}+\frac{4}{\pi }S\frac{4+(4/\pi )4.6559}{M+1}\frac{9.9281}{M+1}$$

for all $`d1`$. An application of (10) produces

$$D(Q^k)19.857d^{3d/2}\beta ^dk^{d/2}$$

which establishes the constant $`C_2`$ in the statement of the theorem. ∎

We remark that this argument simplifies the proof given in  for the case $`d=1`$. For specific $`d`$, the constants $`C_1,C_2`$ can be improved by adjusting the derivations of the constants $`Z_1,Z_2`$ and the bound for the last inequality in (13).

## 3. Choosing Generators

Badly approximable $`d`$-tuples are plentiful. Cassels  shows that there uncountably many badly approximable $`d`$-tuples in $`𝐑^d`$. Moreover, results of Schmidt \[10, pp. 53-59\] imply that the Hausdorff dimension of the set of badly approximable vectors is positive. For some concrete examples, it can be shown (see, e.g., \[4, p. 68\]) that if $`1,\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _d`$ are linearly independent over $`𝐙`$, and if the degree of the extension $`[𝐐(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _d):𝐐]=d+1`$, then $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is badly approximable.

We have shown that badly approximable $`d`$-tuples in $`𝐑^d`$ give rise to random walks with the fastest convergence, established sharp rates of convergence, and exhibited how the constants depend on the approximation constants $`\beta ,B`$ of the given $`d`$-tuple. However, just among badly approximable $`d`$-tuples, can we say which random walks converge “the fastest”? By Theorem 1, this amounts to identifying $`d`$-tuples with the largest possible approximation constant $`\beta `$.

For $`d=1`$, the number $`\varphi =\frac{\sqrt{5}1}{2}`$ satisfies (3) and is therefore badly approximable; in fact, it is known to be the “most” badly approximable number in the sense that its approximation constant $`\beta `$ is larger than for any other number.

For $`d=2`$, we conjecture that the “most” badly approximable $`2`$-tuple is the vector $`𝐯=(\gamma ^2,\gamma ^1)`$, where $`\gamma 1.3247`$ is the unique real root of $`x^3x1`$. For this $`𝐯`$, we believe (based on heuristic arguments and numerical evidence) that for any $`\beta <0.54850\mathrm{}`$, there is a sufficiently large $`N`$ such that $`n>N`$ implies that

(14)
$$n𝐯>\beta n^{1/2}.$$

Furthermore, no other vector can have a much larger approximation constant $`\beta `$, because the work of Davenport and Mahler  implies that if $`\beta >(2/\sqrt{23})^{1/2}.64577\mathrm{}`$, then there is no vector $`𝐯`$ in $`𝐑^2`$ for which (14) holds for all $`n`$.

Thus the pair $`(\gamma ^2,\gamma ^1)`$ yields a random walk on the circle with 2 generators whose convergence rate appears close to fastest possible over all badly approximable pairs. Is it fastest? For larger $`d`$ the question is also open.