arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 21 Oct 2011

Transcription

1 Quasi-stationary distributions and Yaglom limits of self-similar Markov processes Bénédicte Haas & Víctor Rivero arxiv:.4795v [math.pr] 2 Oct 2 Abstract We discuss the eistence and characterization of quasi-stationary distributions and Yaglom limits of self-similar Markov processes that reach in finite time. By Yaglom limit, we mean the eistence of a deterministic function g and a non-trivial probability measure ν such that the process rescaled by g and conditioned on non-etinction converges in distribution towards ν. f the study of quasi-stationary distributions is easy and follows mainly from a previous result by Bertoin and Yor [5] and Berg [2], that of Yaglom limits is more challenging. We will see that a Yaglom limit eits if and only if the etinction time at of the process is in the domain of attraction of an etreme law and we will then treat separately three cases, according whether the etinction time is in the domain of attraction of a Gumbel law, a Weibull law or a Fréchet law. n each of these cases, necessary and sufficient conditions on the parameters of the underlying Lévy process are given for the etinction time to be in the required domain of attraction. The limit of the process conditioned to be positive is then characterized by a multiplicative equation which is connected to a factorization of the eponential distribution in the Gumbel case, a factorization of a Beta distribution in the Weibull case and a factorization of a Pareto distribution in the Fréchet case. This approach relies partly on results on the tail distribution of the etinction time, which is known to be distributed as the eponential integral of a Lévy process. n that aim, new results on such tail distributions are given, which may be of independent interest. Last, we present applications of the Fréchet case to a family of Ornstein-Uhlenbeck processes. AMS subject classifications: 6G8; 6F5; 6G5. Keywords: self-similar Markov processes, Lévy processes, Yaglom limits, quasi-stationary distributions, etreme value theory, eponential functionals of Lévy processes. ntroduction and main results Let X be a continuous time strong Markov process with values in R +. We will denote by P its distribution started at and P ν its distribution when X is distributed according to a probability measure ν. t is supposed that there eists some α > such that this process is self-similar with inde /α >, that is for c >, the distribution of {cx tc α,t } under P is P c for all. This defines a /α-positive self-similar Markov process /α-pssmp). We will assume furthermore that T := inf{u > : X u = } < P -a.s. for all, Université Paris-Dauphine, haas@ceremade.dauphine.fr Centro de nvestigación en Matemáticas CMAT A.C.) rivero@cimat.m

2 andthat isacemetery stateforx.wedenotebyt F thesupremumofthesupportofthisetinction time under P, that is t F := sup{t : P T t) < }. ) The goal of the paper is then twofold: investigate the quasi-stationary QS) distributions of X, that is study the eistence and characterize the probability measures µ on, ) such that for all t [,t F ), for all Borel sets B; P µ X t B t < T ) = P µ B) study the asymptotic behavior of X t conditioned on non-etinction. More precisely, our goal is to determine under which conditions there eists a function g : [, ), ) and a non-degenerate probability measure ν on, ) such that P Xt gt) t < T ) weakly t t F ν. 2) We will then say that ν is a limit in the Yaglom sense of X. t is not hard to see that the function g and the measure ν are then uniquely determined up to a scaling constant, in the sensethat ifaconvergence oftype2) holdsfortwopairsg,ν) andg,ν ), thengt)/g t) c as t t F for some c > and ν = ν cid). n related literature, the terminology Yaglom limit is often used for convergences of the type 2) with gt) =,t. As we will see, for self-similar Markov processes, the limiting distribution of X t conditioned on non-etinction is often trivial, converging either to the Dirac measure at or to the Dirac measure at. To evaluate the asymptotic behavior of X t conditioned on non-etinction more accurately, we therefore have to normalize the process appropriately. At this stage we would like to mention that when t F =, if one replaces the definition 2) of Yaglom limit by asking that there eists a function g : [, ), ) such that for all > ) Xt P gt) t < T t ν 3) with ν a non-degenerate probability measure on, ) then, by the self-similarity of X, the random variable X t /gt α ) conditioned on non-etinction has a non-trivial limit in distribution, and therefore, gt α )/gt)) c for some c >, >. This implies that g is regularly varying at. But, as we will see further, convergence in the sense 2) may hold for some functions g that are not regularly varying. Hence the definition 3) is more restrictive than 2). The problem of eistence of QS distributions and Yaglom limits of certain classes of pssmp has been considered by some authors. For instance, Kyprianou and Pardo [26] studied the case of a stable continuous state branching processes see also Lambert [27] for similar results on non-stable continuous state branching processes). n[22], the first author considered the case of non-increasing pssmp with some additional hypotheses) in order to describe the asymptotic behavior of solutions to some fragmentation equations. Our main purpose here is to provide a unified and general approach for QS distributions and Yaglom limits of pssmp that die at their first hitting time at. Specific applications will then be discussed, for instance to stable processes killed at, ], Bessel processes killed at their first passage at, stable continuous state branching processes, etc. Our main results can also be used to study the eistence of quasi-stationary distributions and Yaglom n all the paper, convergences of probability measures are weak convergences. This is implicit from now on and will not be mentioned further. 2

3 limits for processes of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type associated to pssmp, particular cases of which are here studied. n particular in Eample 3 we obtain a result closely related to Mandl s [29] seminal result about Yaglom limits for the classical Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process. n order to state our main results we recall first a few facts about self-similar Markov processes, Lévy processes and eponential functionals of Lévy processes. Further details will be given in Section 2.. t is well-known see Lamperti [28]) that there eists a R { } valued Lévy process ξ with as a cemetery state) independent of the starting point X, such that ) X t = X ep ξ τtx α ), t, 4) where τ is the time-change τt) = inf { s > : s } epαξ u )du > t, t, with the usual convention inf{ } =. Thelifetime or firsthitting time of for the Lévy process ξ associated to X via Lamperti s transformation will be denoted by ζ. Lamperti proved that, for any >, T is finite P -a.s. if and only if either ζ < a.s., or ζ = a.s. and lim t ξ t = a.s., which are the cases we will generally consider in this paper. Conversely, Lamperti proved that given a Lévy process ξ, the transformation just described gives rise to a /α-pssmp. We will refer to this transformation as Lamperti s transformation. Throughout this paper P will be the reference measure, and under P, X will be a pssmp and ξ the Lévy process associated to it via Lamperti s transformation; as already mentioned, P then denotes the law of X issued from X =. t follows from Lamperti s transformation that under P the first hitting time of for X, T has the same law as α ζ epαξ s)ds. The random variable defined by := ζ epαξ s )ds, 5) is usually named eponential functional of the Lévy process ξ. Lamperti s above mentioned result implies that is a.s. finite if and only if ζ < a.s. or ζ = and lim t ξ t =, a.s. Using this it is easy to see that t F, as defined in ), is finite if and only if ξ is a subordinator with a strictly positive drift and that necessarily the drift is then equal to /αt F ) see Lemma 2.). n the theory of self-similar Markov processes it is well known that eponential functionals of Lévy processes are keystone, for instance they are used to describe entrance laws and allow to determine the local and asymptotic behavior of pssmp, see for instance [4],[6],[5],[37],[38]. So, it should not be surprising that they also play a central role in our development, nevertheless it is rather unepected that the study of the maimal domain of attraction of eponential functionals of Lévy processes allows to determine the eistence of Yaglom limits, as it will be seen below. n section 2. we will provide further details about eponential functionals of Lévy processes. For notational convenience we assume from now on that the self-similarity inde is α = when X is a /α-pssmp, the process X α is a -pssmp and hence the transitions from -pssmp to /α-pssmp are straightforward: when ξ is the Lévy process related to X via Lamperti s transformation 4), αξ is the one related to X α ). We recall that in the case where ξ is a subordinator, that is it has no-decreasing paths, its distribution is characterized by its Laplace eponent, φ, which is given by lne[epλξ t )]) = tφλ) = t q +dλ+ ) e λ )Πd), λ, 6) 3

4 where q, d and )Πd) <. t turns out that the eistence and description of QS distributions of pssmp is easy to settle. t mainly relies on results by Bertoin and Yor [5] who proved that when ξ is a possibly killed subordinator, there eists a random variable R independent of such that R Law = e, 7) where e has an eponential distribution with parameter. The distribution of R is then uniquely determined by this equation and is a QS distribution of X. ts entire moments can be epressed in terms of the Laplace eponent φ of ξ : E[R n ] = n φi), n N. 8) i= We denote here by µ e) the distribution of this random variable R. The results of Bertoin and Yor can be completed as follows. Theorem.. X admits a QS law if and only if X has non-increasing paths. More precisely, i) if X has non-increasing paths, the set of QS distributions of X is eactly {µ e) λid),λ > }; ii) conversely, if X admits QS distributions, there eists a random variable R independent of such that R Law = e, which then implies that ξ is a subordinator. The proof of this result will be given in Section 2.2. Studying the large times behavior of X t conditioned on non-etinction is more challenging. A simple but key result for our analysis is the following equality of measures: for all t, ) P t > t) = P X t Ĩ t < T, 9) where Ĩ has the same law as and is independent of X s, s t). This identity is proved in Lemma 2.2. Eistence of a Yaglom limit for X is therefore connected to the behavior as t t F of the residual lifetime at t of the random variable, more precisely it is equivalent to the eistence of a function g such that the weak limit ) t lim P t t F gt) > t eists and is non-trivial. According to the Pickands-Balkema-de Haan Theorem [, 35], this, in turn, holds if and only if is in the domain of attraction of an etreme value distribution. The three families of etreme value distributions being the Gumbel family we then write that MDA Gumbel ), Weibull family MDA Weibull ) and Fréchet family MDA Fréchet ). Some background and references on etreme value theory are given in Section 2.3, where the above assertions are also settled properly. See in particular Proposition 2.7. Let us now state our main results, which are split into four theorems, the two first ones being two sub-cases of the Gumbel case, the third one being the Weibull case and the last one the Fréchet case. n order to state these results, in particular to build some of the normalizing functions g, we 4

5 need to introduce the following function: for Π a measure on integrating and q, we denote by ϕ Π,q the inverse function of the mapping t t e t )Πd)+q, ) this inverse function being well-defined on [, ) if q > and [ Πd)), ) otherwise. Theorem.2. Assume that ξ is a subordinator with killing rate q, no drift and a Lévy measure Π such that Π) lim inf >. ) Πu)du Then MDA Gumbel, t F = and P ϕπ,q t)x t t t < T ) t µe). Reciprocally, if MDA Gumbel and t F =, then necessarily ξ is a subordinator without drift. Note that when Π is infinite, the normalizing function t t/ϕ Π,q t) converges to as t and is asymptotically independent of q. But when Π is finite, it converges towards /Π, )+q). n those cases, the above theorem states that P X t t < T ) has a non-trivial limit. More precisely, we have the following equivalence. Corollary.3. The conditional laws P X t t < T ) have a non-trivial limit as t if and only if ξ is a subordinator with no drift and a finite Lévy measure. This limit is then µ e) id/π, ) +q)), where Π denotes the Lévy measure of ξ and q its killing rate. The cases were ξ is a subordinator without drift were partly studied in [22] under the assumptions that q = and the tail distribution of Π is regularly varying at with some inde in [,). The above assumption ) on Π is clearly far more general than regular variation. When ) holds the function Πy)dy is then said to be of positive increase near since this assumption is equivalent to the condition lim inf 2 Πy)dy >. Πy)dy We refer to chapter in Bertoin s book [3] for further equivalent ways of epressing this positive increase condition in particular, see Eercise.7 therein). n [22], Yaglom limits of non-increasing pssmp were used to describe the asymptotic behavior of solutions to a class of fragmentation equations. Theorem.2 thus enables us to enlarge significantly this class of equations. We now turn to the cases of subordinators with a strictly positive drift. The family to which belong the Yaglom limit differs significantly according whether the Lévy measure is finite or not however, in some sense, the infinite case is the limit of the finite cases as Π, ), since the eponential distribution is the limit of normalized Beta distribution as considered below). We start with the infinite Lévy measure cases. Note that the normalizing function in front of X does not depend on the killing rate q. Theorem.4. Assume that ξ is a subordinator with killing rate q, a drift d > and an infinite Lévy measure Π satisfying < liminf Π) limsup Πu)du 5 Π) <. 2) Πu)du

6 Then t F = /d, MDA Gumbel and ) t P dϕ Π, )X t t < T µ e) dt t. d Reciprocally, if t F < and MDA Gumbel, then ξ is a subordinator with a strictly positive drift and an infinite Lévy measure. The assumption 2) on the Lévy measure Π is slightly more restrictive than the assumption ) in the -drift case. However it still contains a large class of Lévy measures, including those with a tail that varies regularly at with some inde in,) note that we had to eclude the inde ). n the case of a subordinator with a strictly positive drift and a finite Lévy measure, the limiting distribution of the re-scaled self-similar process conditioned on non-etinction is no more related to µ e). Let B γ denote a Beta distribution with density γ y) γ,) y), γ >, and consider the factorization in terms of of this Beta distribution, that is, for R γ independent of, R γ Law = B γ. 3) n Section 4 we provide necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of the subordinator ξ for the eistence of this factor R γ. ts distribution is then supported by [,d] and is uniquely determined by its entire moments E [ Rγ n ] n = i= φi) i+γ, n, where as before φ denotes the Laplace eponent of the subordinator ξ. We denote this factor distribution by µ Bγ). Theorem.5. The process ξ is a subordinator with a strictly positive drift and a finite Lévy measure if and only if MDA Weibull. n such cases, ) X t P d t t < T µ B Π, )+q)/d) t, d where as usual q denotes the killing rate, d the drift and Π the Lévy measure. Remark. This Yaglom limit does not belong to the set of QS distributions of the process X. We stress that the proofs of Theorems.2,.4 and.5 are based on new results obtained in Sections 3 and 4 below, some of them being etensions of known results, on the behavior of the tail distribution P > t) as t t F, which are established by using recursively the integral equation on the density of settled by Carmona et al. [3] and etended by [3]. This equation is recalled in formula 6), Section 2.. We believe these results are interesting in themselves and could stimulate the study of eponential functionals of subordinators in etreme value theory. Last, we focus on the non-monotone cases. We observe that these include the case where the underlying Lévy process is a killed subordinator. For that end we will need factorizations of the Pareto distributions. Let P γ denote a Pareto distribution with density on R + γ+) γ, γ >, and consider the factorization J γ Law = P γ, 4) for some random variable J γ independent of. As for the Beta distribution, we will provide in Section 5 a necessary and sufficient condition for the eistence of such a factorization and characterize the distribution of the factor J γ, which is uniquely determined and denoted by µ Pγ). 6

7 Theorem.6. The process X is not monotone and admits a Yaglom limit if and only if MDA Fréchet, that is if and only if t P > t) is regularly varying at, say with inde γ with γ >. n such a case, P Xt t t < T ) t µpγ). 5) Moreover, sufficient conditions for t P > t) to vary regularly with inde γ > as t are: i) either that ξ is not lattice and satisfies the so-called Cramer s condition: ii) or ζ = a.s., and E[epγξ )] = and E [ ξ + epγξ ) ] < ; Pξ > t+s) lim = e γs Pξ 2 > t), s R, lim t Pξ > t) t Pξ > t) = 2E[eγξ ] and E[e γξ ] <. f < γ, it is furthermore assumed that E[ξ ],). Reciprocally, a necessary condition for MDA Fréchet is that E[e γξ ] and E[e γ+δ)ξ ] > for all δ >, for some γ >. The two sufficient conditions i) and ii) are proved in [38] and [4], respectively. We point out that in the latter paper the condition in ii) is stated in an equivalent way for the Lévy measure of the underlying Lévy process. This allows us to ensure that the sufficient conditions for the regular variation of t P > t) do not seem far from being necessary as they are the conjunction of the necessary condition on the moments of ξ and a rather mild condition on the tail behavior of the right tail distribution of the underlying Lévy process, equivalently of the Lévy measure Π. Note in passing that the necessary condition on the moments of ξ gives some eamples of pssmp for which there is no Yaglom limit: e.g. if ξ = σ σ 2 where σ,σ 2 are subordinators, the Lévy measure Π of σ being such that epγ)π d) = for all γ >. Conversely, if ξ is a Lévy process with no positive jumps such that either ζ < a.s. or ζ = a.s. and lim t ξ t =, then ξ has eponential moments of all positive orders, see e.g. [3] chapter V, and hence the conditions i) in Theorem.6 are satisfied. Some specific eamples of this family of pssmp are studied in Section 7, where other eamples are developed. Contrary to the monotone cases, the normalizing function g in the Fréchet cases is independent of the non-monotone process X and is increasing. Note that this linear normalization implies that the limiting distribution, when it eists, of P t ) X t t < T does not depend on, since t X t under P is distributed as t X t under P. Note also that this limiting distribution cannot be QS since there is no QS distribution in the non-monotone cases. However it is a QS distribution for another Markov process, the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck type process U t = e t X e t, t, which is of interest in itself. ndeed, the above result gives necessary and sufficient conditions for the convergence P Ut t < T U ) t µpγ), where T U denotes the first hitting time of for U. Furthermore, it is well-known that such standard Yaglom convergence of a Markov process implies that the limiting distribution is QS for the corresponding Markov process. n fact we will prove that the eistence of a factor J γ in 4) is equivalent to the eistence of a quasi-stationary distribution for U and we will use this Ornstein- Uhlenbeck point of view to describe the distribution µ Pγ). The details of these connection and characterization are given in Section 6. 7

8 2 Background and preliminary results This section is divided in two main parts. First some background on eponential functionals of Lévy processes and a proof of Theorem. are given Subsections 2. and 2.2). Then background on etreme value theory are recalled Subsection 2.3) and applied to set up a key result relating the eistence and characterization of a Yaglom limit of a pssmp X to some asymptotic properties of the tail of the associated eponential functional Subsection 2.4). 2. Background on eponential functionals of Lévy processes As we have seen in the ntroduction most of our study about eistence of Yaglom limits for pssmp can be resumed to the study of the residual lifetime of eponential functionals of Lévy processes, that is why in this section we gather some known distributional results about these r.v. We recall that ξ denotes a real valued Lévy process, possibly killed in ) at time ζ and = ζ epξ s )ds. Assume for the moment that ξ is a subordinator with Laplace eponent φ, and that its killing term is q, its drift is d, and its Lévy measure is Π. We denote by Π) the right tail of Π, Π) = Π, ), >. Carmona, Petit and Yor [3] established that if q = and the mean of ξ is finite then has a density, say k, and it is the unique density that solves the integral equation k) = dk)+ Πlny/))ky)dy,, /d). Recently in [3], it has been proved that both hypotheses above can be removed, in the sense that when ξ is a subordinator, the eponential functional has a density, that we still denote by k, and that it solves the integral equation k) = dk)+ Πlny/))ky)dy + q ky)dy,/d). 6) Conversely, if a density on,/d) satisfies this equation then it is a density of. Carmona et al. also obtained the following useful identity about the positive moments of [ E λ] = λ [ φλ) E λ ], λ >. 7) We now leave aside the assumption that ξ is a subordinator. As we have seen in the ntroduction, Yaglom limits are qualitatively different depending on whether the support of the law of T under P is bounded or unbounded, so it is important to determine under which conditions the support of the law of T under P is bounded. The purpose of the following result is to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for t F = sup{t : P T t) < } <. Lemma 2.. Let ξ be a possibly killed real valued Lévy process and such that = ζ eξs ds < a.s. We have that the law of has a bounded support if and only if ξ is a subordinator with a strictly positive drift, say d. n this case the support of is given by [,d ]. Proof. Assume σ = ξ is a possibly killed subordinator with a drift d >. The bounded variation of σ implies that it can be represented as σ t = dt+ <s t s, t < ζ, where s = σ s σ s, for s < ζ a.s., see e.g. [3] chapter. Using this representation it is easily verified that = ζ e σs ds e dζ d 8 d a.s. 8)

9 Now assume that has a bounded support that is contained in [,c ], for some c >. This implies that has moments of all orders, and hence using the independence and homogeneity of the increments of ξ it follows that for any t > fied and all λ >, [ ζ ) λ ] > E e ξs ds [ ζ t λ ] > E e λξt e ξ s+t ξ t ds),t < ζ = E[e λξt,t < ζ]e [ ζ ) λ ] e ξs ds. Therefore, > E[e λξt,t < ζ], λ >, and hence Pξ t >,t < ζ) =. n other case we would have that [ ] [ ] lim E e λξt λ {ξt>},t < ζ = E lim λ eλξt {ξt>},t < ζ =, which is a contradiction. t follows that Pξ t,t < ζ) =, for all t >, which is equivalent to say that ξ is a subordinator. Let us assume that the drift is equal to zero and establish a contradiction. By Carmona et al. s moment formula 7) and an elementary upper bound it follows that n i φi) = E[n ] cn, n. i= Takinglogarithmsinbothsidesoftheinequalityandusingthatforλ >, φλ) λ = q λ + e λ Π)d, with q the killing rate, we get that lnc) n n i= [ ln e i Π)+q ) ] d, n. Hence using that q λ + e λ Π)d and that the right most term in the latter display is λ a Cesàro mean,we get by making n, that lnc) =, which is a contradiction to the assumption that c >. t is therefore impossible to have a zero drift whenever the support of is bounded. Let us now check that the support is given by [,d ]. The equation 8) implies that the support of the law of, say [,c ], is contained in [,d ]. Repeating the latter argument with φλ) λ = q λ +d+ e λ Π)d, we infer that lnc lnd, and therefore d c, from where the result follows. To finish this subsection we prove the key identity 9). Lemma 2.2. Let X be a pssmp that hits continuously, ξ be the underlying real valued Lévy process, and := ζ eξs ds. For < t < t F, P t dy t < ) = P X t Ĩ dy t < T ) where Ĩ has the same law as and is independent of X s,s t). 9

10 Proof. Let τt) = inf{s > : s eξu du > t}, and observe that τt) is a stopping time. Conditionally on the event {t < } = {τt) < ζ}, we have ζ τt) ) ζ τt) = e ξs ds = e ξs ds+e ξ τt) e ξ τt)+u ξ τt) ) du = t+e ξ τt) Ĩ, where Ĩ is independent of ξ s,s τt)) and has the same law as because the process ξ τt)+s ξ τt), s ζ τt)) has the same law as ξ and is independent of ξ s,s τt)), by the strong Markov property of ξ. We conclude with Lamperti s identity that X t,p ) Law = e ξ τt),p). 2.2 Quasi-stationary distributions The main purpose of this subsection is to prove Theorem., this will be a direct consequence of Lemmas 2.3 and 2.4 below. The eistence of quasi-stationary distribution for pssmp with decreasing paths has been incidentally studied by Bertoin and Yor. An etension of their results is summarized in the following Lemma. Lemma 2.3 The case of non-increasing paths. Bertoin and Yor [5]). Assume that X has nonincreasing paths and hits zero in a finite time, that is the Lévy processes associated to X via Lamperti s transformation, say ξ, is such that ξ is a subordinator. Then for θ >, i) there eists a QS-law for X, µ θ d)p X t dy t < T ) = µ θ dy), y, and such that µ θ d)p t < T ) = e θt, t ; ii) µ θ is characterized by its entire moments φ still denotes the Laplace eponent of ξ): n n µ θ d) = θ n φi), n. iii) if R θ µ θ and R θ is independent of ξ, then R θ ζ i= e ξs ds Law = e/θ. Proof. We assume first that θ =. Bertoin and Yor [5] and Berg [2] established the eistence of a probability measure µ such that the claims in ii) and iii) hold. The identity for t, µ d)p X t dy,t < T ) = e t µ dy), y, has been established by Bertoin and Yor [5] in their Proposition 4 including the cases when the subordinator ξ is killed this is not clearly specified in their statement, but is clear from their second proof of Proposition 4 ). ntegrating the constant function we get that µ d)p t < T ) = e t, t.

11 From where the identity i) when θ =. We should now prove the results for any θ >. Let µ θ dy) := µ θ id) dy). t is plain that the claims in ii) and iii) hold. Let f : R + be any measurable and bounded test function. To prove the claim i) observe that by the self-similarity of X and the fact that the results are true for µ we have the identities µ θ dy)e y [fx t ) t < T ] = µ dy)e y/θ [fx t ) t < T ] = = µ dy)e y [ f θ X tθ ) tθ < T ] µ dy)fθ y) = µ θ dy)fy). 9) Knowing the results by Bertoin and Yor it is natural to ask if there are other pssmp, which have non-monotone paths, that admit a quasi-stationary distribution and if we can obtain a similar factorization of the eponential law. The answer to this question is No. Lemma 2.4. X admits a quasi-stationary law if and only if X has non-increasing paths. Proof. f µ is a QS-law for X, the simple Markov property implies that there eists an inde θ > such that µd)p t < T ) = e θt, t. The self-similarity of X implies e θt = µd)p t < T ) = µd)p t < T ). R + Recall then that T,P ) Law =,P), where = ζ eξs ds. Then if R µ and R is independent of, we have that R Law = e/θ. This identity and the independence imply that has moments of all orders, thus arguing as in the proof of Lemma 2. we prove that necessarily ξ is a subordinator. This proves the necessity. The sufficiency follows from Lemma 2.3. We have the following corollary to the proof of the latter result. Corollary 2.5. Let ξ be a Lévy process such that := ζ eξs ds < a.s. There eists an independent r.v. R such that R Law = e, if and only if ξ is a possibly killed subordinator. 2.3 Some background on etreme value theory For details we refer to the books of de Haan and Ferreira [6] and Resnick [36]. Etremal laws are the possible limits in distribution of sequences of the form ma{z,...,z n } a n )/b n where the random variables Z i,i are i.i.d. and the sequences a n,n ) and b n,n ) deterministic, with b n >,n. When such a limit holds, we say that the distribution of the) random variable Z is in the domain of attraction of an etremal law. There are three possible types of limit distributions we say that a r.v. Z is of the same type as Z if Z Law = az +b for some deterministics constants a, b):

12 - Gumbel distribution : PZ ) = ep ep )), R - Weibull distribution : PZ ) = ep ) γ ), γ > ) - Fréchet distribution : PZ ) = ep γ ), γ > ). For any random variable Z R, we denote by t Z = inf{t : PZ > t) = }. The following theorem gathers standard results in etreme values theory. See in particular the papers by Balkema and de Haan [], Pickands [35] and Theorems..2,..3,..6 and.2.5 of the book of de Haan and Ferreira [6]. Theorem 2.6. For Z a real random variable, there eists a positive function g and a non-degenerate probability measure ν such that the limit PZ > gt)+t) lim = ν, ) holds for all which is a continuity point of ν, ), 2) t t Z PZ > t) if and only if Z is in the domain of attraction of an etremal law. Moreover, i) if Z is in the domain of attraction of a Gumbel law, then 2) holds with gt) = t PZ > u)du/pz > t), t < t Z and ν, ) = ep ),. ii) Z is in the domain of attraction of a Weibull law with parameter γ > if and only if t Z < and PZ > t Z /) is regularly varying at with inde γ. Then 2) holds with gt) = t Z t and ν, ) = ) γ,,). iii) Z is in the domain of attraction of a Fréchet law with parameter γ > if and only if t Z = and PZ > ) is regularly varying at with inde γ. Then 2) holds with gt) = t and ν, ) = +) γ,. Contrary to the Weibull and Fréchet cases, there is no simple condition that characterizes random variables in the domain of attraction of a Gumbel distribution. For our purpose, we will use the so-called von Mises condition recalled in the forthcoming Lemma 3.3. Other versions of von Mises conditions are also available see e.g. [36]). We also mention that the papers of Balkema and de Haan [] and Geluk [2] give conditions on conditional moments of the random variables Z t) + for Z to be in the domain of attraction of a Gumbel distribution, but we will not use this approach later. 2.4 A key result Recall the notation X,ξ, from the ntroduction, as well as notation e, B γ and P γ, with γ >, for an eponential r.v. with parameter, a Beta r.v. with density γ ) γ,,), and a Pareto r.v. with density γ + ) γ, >. The following result links the Yaglom limits of X we are interested in to the asymptotic behavior of the residual life-time of. t is available for all Lévy processes ξ such that < a.s. Proposition 2.7. There eists a function g : R + and a non-trivial probability measure µ such that ) Xt P gt) t < T µ 2) t t F if and only if is in the domain of attraction of an etreme distribution. We then distinguish three cases : 2

13 i) MDA Gumbel if and only if P > gt)+t)/p > t) t for some function g. Then we have that ) Xt P gt) t < T ep ), >, µ e) t t, F where µ e) is the unique distribution such that for R µ e) independent of, R Law = e. ii) MDA Weibull if and only if there eists γ >, such that Then we have that where µ Bγ) P > t F t)+t)/p > t) t t F ) γ,,). ) Xt P t F t t < T µ Bγ) t t, F is the unique distribution such that for R γ µ Bγ) iii) MDA Fréchet if and only if there eists a γ > such that Then we have that where µ Pγ) P > +)t)/p > t) t +) γ, >. P Xt t ) t < T t µpγ), is the unique distribution such that for J γ µ Pγ) independent of, R γ Law = B γ. independent of, J γ Law = P γ. This result is an obvious consequence of Theorem 2.6, combined with the factorization obtained in Lemma 2.2 and the forthcoming Lemmas 2.8 and 2.9. Note that it implies the eistence of the factor distributions µ e), µ Bγ) or µ Pγ) when, respectively, is in the domain of attraction of a Gumbel, Weibull or Fréchet distribution. Lemma 2.8. f is in the domain of attraction of an etreme distribution, there eists some ε > such that E[ a ] < for all a ε,ε). Proof. First note that a random variable in the domain of attraction of an etreme distribution necessarily has some strictly positive moments, i.e. E[ ε ] < for some ε >. This is obvious when MDA Weibull since its support is bounded. t is also obvious for MDA Fréchet, since t P > t) is then regularly varying at with a strictly negative inde. Last, it is well-known that a random variable in the domain of attraction of a Gumbel distribution has positive moments of all orders, see e.g. Proposition. of [36]. Under the assumption that the lifetime of the underlying Lévy process is infinite, in Lemma 3 in [4] it has been proved that if E[ γ ] <, for some γ >, then necessarily E[ γ ] <. But the result is true in general and the proof in [4] can be easily etended. n particular E[ ε ] <, which leads to the claimed result, taking ε,/2) if necessary. 3

14 Lemma 2.9. Let U,Z,Y t,t be strictly positive random variables, with Z independent of Y t,t ) and such that E[Z a ] < for all a ε,ε) for some ε >. Then we have the implication, Y t Z Law U a r.v. Y such that Y Law t Y t t where the distribution of Y is uniquely determined by the equation for Y independent of Z. YZ Law = U Proof. f E[Z a ] < for a ε,ε) for some ε >, then z C E[e izlnz ] is analytic on {z C : mz) ε,ε)}. n particular, A := {t R : E[e itlnz ] = } has no accumulation point and there eists a neighborhood of which it does not intersect. From the convergence Y t Z Law U, we get that E[e ialnyt ] t E[e ialnu ] E[e ialnz ] a R\A. Since the limiting function is well-defined and continuous on a neighborhood of, we obtain, eactly as in the proof of Paul Lévy s continuity Theorem, that lny t,t ) is tight. Let lny and lny be two possible limits in distribution. Then E[e ialny ] = E[e ialny ] for all a R\A. Since A has no accumulation point and the characteristic functions are continuous on R, there are identical. Hence lny is distributed as lny, and lny t converge in distribution. We denote by lny the limiting random variable. Necessarily, there eists then a version of Y independent of Z and such that YZ is distributed as U. Moreover, if Y is a strictly positive random variable independent of Z and such that Y Z Law = U, then the characteristic functions of lny and lny coincide on R\A. Hence they are identical and lny is distributed as lny. 3 Yaglom limits: Gumbel cases The goal of the present section is to prove Theorem.2, Corollary.3 and Theorem.4. n view of Proposition 2.7, our goal is to characterize the self-similar Markov processes whose etinction time belongs to the domain of attraction of a Gumbel distribution, and then determine the normalizing function g. Necessary conditions are easy to settle: it is well-known that if MDA Gumbel, then it possesses positive moments of all orders, which implies that ξ is a subordinator, as observed in Section 2.. We will moreover see in the net section that when ξ is a subordinator with a drift d > and a finite Lévy measure, is in the domain of attraction of a Weibull distribution. From this we conclude that necessary conditions for MDA Gumbel are: either that ξ is a subordinator without drift then t F = ) or that ξ is a subordinator with a strictly positive drift and an infinite Lévy measure then t F < ). Reciprocally, the two following propositions give sufficient conditions for MDA Gumbel. We recall that ϕ Π,q is defined from a Lévy measure Π and a real number q via ). Proposition 3.. Assume that ξ is a subordinator with killing rate q, no drift and a Lévy measure Π satisfying ). Then, ) P > t+ t ϕ Π,q t) ep ),. P > t) t 4

15 Proposition 3.2. Assume that ξ is a subordinator with killing rate q, drift d > and an infinite Lévy measure Π satisfying 2). Then, ) P > t+ dϕ Π, dt) t ep ),. P > t) t d More precisely, together with Proposition 2.7, these two propositions and the above discussion prove Theorems.2 and.4. t remains therefore to prove these propositions, and for this we will use the so-called von Mises condition, which is reminded in the following lemma. Lemma 3.3 Resnick [36], Prop..7). Let U be a non-negative random variable with density f such that the von Mises condition is satisfied ft) t PU > u)du PU > t)) 2, as t sup{r : PU > r) > }. t Then, as t sup{r : PU > r) > }, P U > t+ t PU > u)du/pu > t) ) PU > t) t ep ),, and a similar convergence holds when replacing t PU > u)du/pu > t) by any asymptotically equivalent function. We recall that under the assumptions of Propositions 3. and 3.2, the random variable possesses a density k which satisfies the equation 6). By using recursively a variant of this equation, we will obtain the same estimates in terms of ϕ Π,q for both quotients kt)/p > t) and P > t)/ t P > u)du as t t F. This will prove von Mises condition for, hence Propositions 3. and 3.2. Besides, by integrating kt)/p > t), we will also get an asymptotic estimate in terms of ϕ Π,q of lnp > t), which etends previous results on this topic. For the proofs of these estimates, we separate the drift-free cases Section 3.) from the strictly positive drift cases Section 3.2). n all cases, φ denotes the Laplace eponent of the subordinator ξ. Last, Corollary.3 is proved in Section Drift-free case: proof of Proposition 3. n this section it is assumed that ξ is a subordinator with killing rate q, no drift and a Lévy measure denoted by Π. The random variable then possesses a density k which satisfies the equation 6) by Carmona, Petit and Yor with d =. ntegrating by parts, this becomes k) = = Πlnu/))ku)du + qp > ) P > ) P > e v ))Πdv)+qP > ), 22) which, setting f) := lnp > )), leads to the equation f ) = k) P > ) = epf) fe v )))Πdv)+q. 23) 5

16 Proposition 3.4. Assume moreover that Π satisfies ). Then, and consequently f ) = k) P > ) f) = lnp > )) a being any real number such that ϕ Π,q is defined on [a, ). ϕ Π,q ) a ϕ Π,q u) du, u n particular, when Π) is regularly varying at with inde β,] the assumption ) on Π is satisfied and standard Abelian Tauberian theorems [9] imply that ϕ Π,q varies regularly at with inde / β) and then f) β)ϕ Π,q ). We therefore recover the second author estimates for lnp > ) [37], with a different approach: Corollary 3.5. When Π) is regularly varying at with inde β,], then lnp > )) β)ϕ Π,q ). Remark. The assumption ) on Π is only needed to get that limsup f )/ϕ Π,q )). Moreover, we will see in the proof below that when Π is infinite, without any further assumptions, f ) ϕ Π,q )/ for all large enough. Net, we set up a similar estimate for P > )/ P > u)du. n that aim, set F ) = P > u)du, and g) = lnf ). Note that F ) < since E[] <. Then integrate equation 22) to get, together with Fubini s theorem, ) P > ) = F ) e v F e v ) Πdv)+qF ) and therefore g P > ) ) = P > u)du = ep v +g) ge v )))Πdv)+q,. 24) Although this equation is not eactly the same as that satisfied by f, we will obtain in a similar manner the following estimate. Proposition 3.6. Assume ). Then, g ) = P > ) P > u)du ϕ Π,q ). Proposition 3. is then proved by combining Propositions 3.4 and 3.6, together with Lemma

17 3.. Proof of Proposition 3.4 A first easy observation, is that P > ) is rapidly varying at in the drift-free case without any assumption on Π, ecept that Π, ) > ). This means that for any c >, P > c) P > ) as. This is easy to see. Note first that for c > and all >, c P > c) P > ) P > u)du c )P > ) P > u)du c )P > ) = c )g ). But 24) implies that g ) φ) > for all. Hence, and letting, rapid variation is proved. P > c) P > ) c )φ) ) Π is finite. The proof of Proposition 3.4 is easy when Π is finite. On the one hand, we immediately get from the definition of ϕ Π,q, that ϕ Π,q ) Π, )+q). On the other hand, the rapid variation of P > ) at implies that epf) fe v )) as for all v >. Plugging this in 23) and using Fatou s lemma, we get that Π, )+q liminf f ). That f ) Π, ) + q for all is obvious. Hence f ) Π, ) + q ϕ Π,q )/ as. 2) Π is infinite. We will need the following remark. Let φ +)) := lim /φ) <. Since /φ) is continuous strictly increasing from, ) to φ +)), ), the function ϕ Π,q is well-defined on φ +)), ) and for > φ +)), ϕ Π,q )/ is then the unique non-zero solution to the equation in u) u = φu). 25) Note that this is true for all finite, infinite) Lévy measures Π. But the following lemma is only true for infinite Lévy measures. As above, it relies on the rapid variation at of the tail P > ) and on Fatou s lemma, and so we omit the details. Lemma 3.7. As, f ). Now, we construct by induction a sequence of non-negative continuous functions h n defined on [, ) by h ) =, and Then, h n+ ) = e v )) ep h n u)du Πdv)+q,. 26) for each n, h n is non-decreasing on, ): this is proved by induction on n, using that when h n is non-decreasing, so is e v h n u)du; for each n, and all, h n+ ) φh n )). To see this we use that h n is nondecreasing, hence e v h n u)du h n )e v ) h n )v. The conclusion follows from the definition of φ; 7

18 for all for some large enough, the sequence h n ),n ) is non-decreasing and its limit, denoted by h ), satisfies h ) ϕ Π,q )/. ndeed: since h ) φ) and since φ) has an infinite limit as, we have that h ) h ) for all for some <, that is moreover assumed larger than φ +)). By an obvious induction, we then have that h n+ ) h n ) for all and all n. Hence the eistence of h ). Last, if h ) =, it is obviously larger than ϕ Π,q )/. Otherwise, use the fact that φ is continuous and h n+ ) φh n )) for all n, to get that h ) φh )) for. Note then that h ) h ) = henceis nonnull), to get thath )φh ))), hence that h ) ϕ Π,q ) on [, ), using for this conclusion the few lines preceding equation 25). Now, by Lemma 3.7, there eists such that f ) = h ) on [, ). By induction on n, since f satisfies equation 23), we easily get that f ) h n ) on [, ) for all n. Hence f ) h ) ϕ Π,q )/ on [ma, ), ). We conclude that lim inf f )/ϕ Π,q ) ). We will net prove lim sup f )/ϕ Π,q ) ), which turns out to be more tricky. t is a consequence of the two following lemmas. Lemma 3.8. f ) = h ) for [, ). Proof. t relies on the following observation: f is the unique differentiable function defined on [, ) which is non-decreasing, null at, converging to as and satisfying 23). ndeed, let h be a function satisfying to all these properties. Then [, ) ep h)) is the cumulative distribution function of some random variable possessing a density satisfying equation 22). But, as already mentioned, this equation has a unique solution which is a density. Hence h = f. Now, consider an etension of h defined on [, ): for this set h ) = h ) on [, ) and h ) = on [, ). Then construct a sequence h n,n ) by induction, constructing h n+ from h n as h n+ was constructed from h n via 26). Clearly, h n ) = h ) on [, ) for all n. Besides, for all [, ), h ) = h ) and of course, this also holds for. Hence h ) h ) on [, ) and this implies, by an obvious induction, that h n ),n ) is an increasing sequence for all. Call h ) its limit for all and let H be its primitive on [, ) nul at. Clearly: H is non-decreasing, differentiable, converges to as and satisfies 23). Hence H and h are uniquely determined and h = f. Lemma 3.9. Assume ). Then limsup h )/ϕ Π,q )). Proof. A key point of the proof is that ) implies the eistence of reals numbers < β < and such that for, φa) a β φ), for all a. 27) To see this, the first step is the equivalence between ) and lim sup t tφ t) φt) < see e.g. Eercise 7 of [3] - and note that it is still true when q > ). Hence the eistence of some β,) such that for all a, and all large enough, ) φa) a φ t) a ln = φ) φt) dt β dt = βlna), t 8

19 which indeed gives φa) a β φ). Take then β β,). This implies in particular that φ) β for all, 28) taking larger if necessary. We will need the following fact. Consider ε,) and use that for large enough and all n, ln+ε) e v )) φ) h n+ ) ep h n u)du Πdv)+Πln+ε))+q, together with the fact that Πln+ε)) εφ) εh n+ ) for large since Π is infinite) and all n, to get that ln+ε) e v )) ) h n+ ) ε) ep h n u)du Πdv)+q ln+ε) )) ) ε) ε ep ln+ε) vh n+ε)) Πdv)+q where we have used for the second inequality that h n u) h n e v ) h n +ε)) for u e v and v ln+ε), since h n is non-decreasing, and also that v e v ) is increasing on,ln+ε)). Then for large enough depending on ε), say ε take ε ma,) for simplicity), one has ) h n+ ) ε) ε φ ln+ε) h n+ε)), for all n. 29) Now, consider the sequence of functions defined inductively by φ ) = β / β ) and for n, φ n ) = φφ n )),. Using 28), we see that φ ) +β / β ))β = φ ),. Thus, for those, φ n ),n ) is non-increasing and non-negative). ts limit φ ) satisfies φ ) = φφ )). According to the lines above 25), this implies that either φ ) = or φ ) = ϕ Π,q )/. Besides, by induction, using 27) and that the functions φ n are all non-decreasing on [, ), we obtain, φ n +ε)) +ε) n i= βi +γβ n φ n ),,n, 3) with γ = β / β ). Net, note that h ) = β / β ) for. Hence, using 29) together with 27) and 3), we get by induction on n that for all ε and all n h n ) ) n ) i= βi n ε i= βi +ε) n i= i )βi +γnβ n φ n ). ε ln+ε) Then, for ma, ε ), letting n, h ) ) ) i βi ε i βi +ε) i i )βi φ ). ε ln+ε) Among other things, this implies that φ ) > we remind that h ) h ) = ) hence φ ) = ϕ Π,q )/, and lim sup ) h ) ) ϕ Π,q ) i βi ε i βi +ε) i i )βi, ε ln+ε) and the upper bound converges to as ε tends to. 9

20 3..2 Proof of Proposition 3.6 ) Π is finite. We have seen in the previous section that when Π is finite, k) Π, ) + q)p > ) as. ntegrating this equivalence, we get that ku)du Π, ) + q) P > u)du as. Hence g ) ϕ Π,q )/. 2) Π is infinite. The main lines of the proof are similar to those of the proof of Proposition 3.4 when Π is infinite. We only detail the main differences. First, for A >, we know by Lemma 3.7 that k) AP > ) for A. ntegrating this inequality, we get that g ) A for A, hence g ) as. ntroduce net the sequence of functions h n,n defined recursively by h n+ ) = ep v e v )) h n u)du Πdv)+q,, 3) starting from h constant, equal to. Noticing that h n+ ) φ + h n )) φh n )) for, n, we obtain, eactly as in the proof of Proposition 3.4, using 24), that with obvious notations. g ) h ) ϕ Π,q )/, for large enough, For the converse direction, we need the following lemma. Recall the notation β introduced in 28). Lemma 3.. Assume ). Then for all large enough, g ) 22) β / β ). Proof. First, note from 28) that for large enough, ϕ Π,q )/ β / β ). Hence, by Proposition 3.4, f ) β / β ) 3/2 and then k) β / β ) P > )3/2 for large. ntegrating this inequality on [u,2u] for large u, we get P > u) P > 2u) 3 2 2u)β / β ) u P > y)dy. Besides, since u P > u) is of rapid variation as u, then P > 2u)/P > u) as u. Hence the conclusion. Last, it is easy to prove that Lemma 3.. Assume ). Then limsup g )/ϕ Π,q )). Proof. ntroduce the sequence of functions ĥn,n defined recursively by ĥ) = 22) β / β ) and for n, e v )) ĥ n+ ) = ep v ĥ n u)du Πdv)+q,. 32) Trivially, using Lemma 3. and 24), we get that for all large enough such that g ) 22) β / β ), g ) ĥn), for all n. The proof is then very similar to that of Lemma 3.9, ecept that we have to replace inequality 29), by ) ĥ n+ ) ε) 2 ε φ ln+ε) ĥn+ε)), for all n. 33) 2

21 The reason for this is that 32) leads first to ) ĥ n+ ) ε) ε φ ln+ε) ĥn+ε))+, for all n, for all large enough, independent of n. But from 27), we have that φ+) ε) φ), for sufficiently large dependingon ε). Since, ε/ln+ε)) and ĥn+ε)) g +ε)) for all n and all larger to some independent of n, we indeed get 33). As in the proof of Lemma 3.9, keeping the notation β,γ introduced therein, this leads to g ) ĥn) ) 2 n ) i= βi n ε i= βi +ε) n i= i )βi +γnβ nˆφn ) ε ln+ε) for all sufficiently large depending on ε but not on n), where ˆφ n,n ) is a non-increasing sequence of functions defined recursively from the same induction relation as the one used to construct the sequence φ n,n ), ecept that the initial function is here ˆφ = ĥ. The conclusion follows similarly. 3.2 Positive drift cases: proof of Proposition 3.2 We now assume that the subordinator ξ has a drift d > and an infinite Lévy measure Π. n this case Carmona, Petit and Yor s equation 6) for k becomes d)k) = Πlnu/))ku)du+qP > ) = P > ) P > e v ))Πdv)+qP > ), for [,/d) and k) = otherwise. Setting, as in the previous section, f) = lnp > )), we get that for [,/d) d)f ) = epf) fe v )))Πdv)+q 34) and f) = on [/d, ). Note that for all v >, P > e v )/P > ) is equal to for e v /d,/d). Hence by Fatou s lemma, we see that since Π is infinite d)f ) = d)k) P > ), as /d. n addition to their application to Yaglom s limits of positive self-similar Markov processes, the two following results are also interesting by themselves as they give new results on the tail behavior of P > ) as tends to the right most etreme of the support of when this support is bounded. Proposition 3.2. Assume that 2) holds. Then, ) f ) dϕ Π,, as /d, d and consequently f) d a ) u ϕ Π, du, as /d, du where a,/d) is taken large enough so that ϕ Π, u/ du)) is well-defined on a,/d). 2

22 Corollary 3.3. f Π is regularly varying at with inde β,), f) /d β β d β d)ϕ Π, d Net, consider as in Section 3. the function g) = ln P > u)du), which is equal to on [/d, ), and which, integrating Carmona, Petit and Yor s equation, satisfies on [, /d) the equation g ) d) = d+ Proposition 3.4. Assume that 2) holds. Then, ) g ) dϕ Π,, as /d. d ). ep v +g) ge v ))Πdv)+q. 35) Together with Lemma 3.3, this proposition and Proposition 3.2 imply Proposition Proof of Proposition 3.2 Again, the proof is similar to that of Proposition 3.4. First, using that d)f ) as /d, we easily obtain, mimicking the proof of Proposition 3.4, that for large enough ) ) f ) dϕ Π,q d /d dϕ Π, d recall ϕ Π,q ) ϕ Π, ) whenπisinfinite). Thisisdonebyconsideringthesequenceoffunctions h n defined by h ) = / d) on [,/d), h ) = on [/d, ) and then by induction e v )) h n+ ) = d) ep h n u)du Πdv)+q, [,/d) and h n+ ) = for /d. We claim that for [,/d) for some < /d large enough, the sequence h n ),n ) is increasing, with finite limit h ) f ), and moreover, h n+ ) d φh n)), n, where φ) = φ) d = ep y))πdy)+q. This leads to the epected lower bound, details are left to the reader. The other direction cannot be adapted so easily. However the proof of the following lemma is really the same as that of Lemma 3.8, using the uniqueness of a density solution to the Carmona, Petit and Yor s equation. Lemma 3.5. f ) = h ) for [,/d). Hence Proposition 3.2 will be proved once we have checked the following result. )) Lemma 3.6. Assume 2). Then limsup /d h )/ϕ Π,q d d. Proof. For < ε <, the correct way to split the integral defining h n+ from h n is now lnd) ε h n+ ) d) ) e v )) ) ep h n u)du Πdv)+Πlnd) ε ))+q. 36) 22