arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 27 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 arxiv: v1 [cond-mat.stat-mech] 27 Aug 2018 Max-Min and Min-Max universally yield Gumbel Iddo Eliazar Ralf Metzler Shlomi Reuveni August 29, 2018 Abstract A chain is only as strong as its weakest link says the proverb. But what about a collection of statistically identical chains: How long till all chains fail? The answer to this question is given by the Max-Min of a random matrix whose (i, j) entry is the failure time of link j of chain i: take the minimum of each row, and then the maximum of the rows minima. The corresponding Min-Max is obtained by taking the maximum of each column, and then the minimum of the columns maxima. The Min-Max applies to the storage of critical data. Indeed, consider multiple copies (backups) of a set of critical data items, and consider the (i, j) matrix entry to be the time at which item j on copy i is lost; then, the Min-Max is the time at which the first critical data item is lost. In this paper we establish that the Max-Min and Min-Max of large random matrices are universally governed by asymptotic Gumbel statistics. We further establish that the domains of attraction of the asymptotic Gumbel statistics are effectively all-encompassing. Also, we show how the asymptotic Gumbel statistics can be applied to the design of large systems. Keywords: Max-Min and Min-Max; random matrices; Poisson processes; exponential intensities; extreme-value statistics; universality. PACS: r (probability theory, stochastic processes, and statistics); a (Fluctuation phenomena, random processes, noise, and Brownian motion) Israel Math Museum Initiative. eliazar@post.tau.ac.il University of Potsdam, Institute of Physics & Astronomy, Potsdam, Germany. School of Chemistry, and the Center for the Physics and Chemistry of Living Systems; and The Sackler Center for Computational Molecular and Materials Science, Tel Aviv University, , Tel Aviv, Israel. 1

2 1 Introduction Extreme Value Theory (EVT) is a branch of probability theory that focuses on extremevalue statistics such as maxima and minima [1]-[3]. EVT has major applications in science and engineering [4]-[6]; examples range from insurance to finance, and from hydrology to computer vision [7]-[9]. At the core of EVT stands its fundamental theorem, also known as the Fisher-Tippett-Gnedenko theorem [10]-[11], which establishes the three extreme-value laws: Weibull [12]-[13], Frechet [14], and Gumbel [15]. The fundamental theorem of EVT applies to ensembles of independent and identically distributed (IID) real-valued random variables, and is described as follows [16]. Consider an ensemble {X 1,,X n } whose n components are IID copies of a general real-valued random variable X. Further consider the ensemble s maximum M n = max{x 1,,X n }, and the affine scaling of this maximum: M n = s n (M n δ n ), (1) where s n is a positive scale parameter, and where δ n is a real location parameter. The fundamental theorem of EVT explores the convergence in law (as n ) of the scaled maximum M n to a non-trivial limiting random variable L. Firstly, the fundamental theorem determines its admissible inputs : the classes of random variables X that yield non-trivial limits L. Secondly, given an admissible input X, the fundamental theorem specifies the adequate scale parameter s n and location parameter δ n. Thirdly, as noted above, the fundamental theorem establishes that its outputs are universal: the statistics of the non-trivial limits L are governed by one of the three extreme-value laws. The domain of attraction of each extreme-value law is the class of inputs X yielding, respectively, each output law. The fundamental theorem of EVT yields asymptotic approximations for the maxima of large ensembles of IID real-valued random variables. Indeed, consider the scaled maximum M n to converge in law (as n ) to a non-trivial limit L. Then, for a given large ensemble (n >> 1), the ensemble s maximum M n admits the following extreme-value asymptotic approximation in law: M n L := δ n + 1 s n L. (2) The extreme-value asymptotic approximation of Eq. (2) has the following meaning: the deterministic asymptotic approximation of the ensemble s maximum M n is the location parameter δ n ; the magnitude of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation is 1/s n, the inverse of the scale parameter s n ; and the statistics of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation are that of the limit L which is governed by one of the three extreme-value laws. The three extreme-value laws are universal in the sense that they are the only nontrivial limiting statistics obtainable (as n ) from the scaled maximum M n. However, universality holds neither for the corresponding domains of attraction, nor for the corresponding scale parameter s n and location parameter δ n. Indeed, each extreme-value law has a very specific and rather narrow domain of attraction [16]. Also, for any given admissible input X, the scale parameter s n and location parameter δ n are custom tailored in a very precise manner [16]. 2

3 In essence, the fundamental theorem of EVT considers a random-vector setting: the maxima of what can be perceived as vector-structured ensembles of IID real-valued random variables. In this paper we elevate from the random-vector setting to the following random-matrix setting: the Max-Min and the Min-Max of matrix-structured ensembles of IID real-valued random variables. The Max-Min is obtained by taking the minimum of each matrix-row, and then taking the maximum of the rows minima. The Min-Max is obtained by taking the maximum of each matrix-column, and then taking the minimum of the columns maxima. The Max-Min and the Min-Max values of matrices emerge naturally in science and engineering. Perhaps the best known example of the Max-Min and the Min-Max comes from game theory [17]-[18]. Indeed, consider a player that has a set of admissible strategies, and that faces a set of viable scenarios. A payoff matrix determines the player s gains or, alternatively, losses for each strategy it applies and for each scenario it encounters. The player s goal is to optimize with respect to the worstcase scenario. Hence, in the case of gains, the player will go Max-Min: calculate the minimal gain per each scenario, and then pick the strategy that yields the maximal minimal gain. And, in the case of losses, the player will go Min-Max: calculate the maximal loss per each scenario, and then pick the strategy that yields the minimal maximal loss. Adopting the setting of random-matrix theory large matrices with IID entries in this paper we analyze the Max-Min and the Min-Max of such matrices. For these Max-Min and Min-Max we apply affine scalings that are analogous to the affine scaling of Eq. (1), and establish asymptotic results a-la the fundamental theorem of EVT. Quite remarkably, this paper s Max-Min and Min-Max results turn out to be profoundly more universal than the fundamental theorem of EVT. Specifically, the Max- Min and the Min-Max results are universal in the three following senses. Firstly, the only limiting statistics obtainable from these results are Gumbel rather than either Weibull, Frechet, or Gumbel. Secondly, the domains of attraction of these results are effectively all-encompassing rather than specific and narrow. Thirdly, the affine scalings of these results are effectively independent of the underlying IID random variables rather than custom tailored to these random variables. This paper is organized as follows. We begin with a bedrock : the underlying random-matrix setting, and a foundational Poisson-process limit-law result. We then establish the Max-Min result, which is motivated by the following question: within a collection of IID chains, how long will the strongest chain hold? Thereafter, we establish the counterpart Min-Max result, which is motivated by the following question: using a collection of IID data-storage copies (backups), how long can the data be stored reliably by the copies? Finally, we discuss the universality of the Max-Min and Min- Max results, and conclude. 2 Bedrock Consider a collection of c chains, labeled by the index i = 1,,c. Each chain comprises of l links, and all the c l links are IID copies of a generic link. In this paper we take a temporal perspective and associate the failure time of the generic link with a 3

4 real-valued random variable T. Alternatively, the random variable T can manifest any other real-valued quantity of interest of the generic link, e.g. its mechanical strength. As the analysis to follow is probabilistic, we introduce relevant statistical notation. Denote by F (t) = Pr(T t) ( < t < ) the distribution function of the generic failure time T, and by F (t) = Pr(T > t) ( < t < ) the corresponding survival function. These functions are coupled by F (t) + F (t) = 1 ( < t < ). The density function of the generic failure time T is given by f (t) = F (t) = F (t) ( < t < ). Note that this notation includes, in particular, the case of a positive-valued generic failure time T (or, more generally, the case of a positive-valued quantity of interest such as the mechanical strength of the generic link). The following random matrix underlies the collection of chains: T 1,1 T 1,l T =..... T c,1 T c,l. (3) The dimensions of the random matrix T are c l, and its entries are IID copies of the generic failure time T. The i th row of the random matrix T represents the l links of chain i, and the entries of this row manifest the respective failure times of the links of chain i. Specifically, the entry T i, j is the failure time of link j of chain i. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link says the proverb. So, chain i fails as soon as one of its links fails. Hence the chain s failure time is given by the minimum of the failure times of its links: i = min { } T i,1,,t i,l (4) (i = 1,,c). Namely, the random variable i is the minimum over the entries of the i th row of the random matrix T. Now, consider an arbitrary reference time t of the generic failure time T, e.g. its median, its mean (in case the mean is finite), or its mode (in case the density function f (t) is unimodal). The reference time t can be any real number that satisfies two basic requirements: (i) 0 < F (t ) < 1; and (ii) 0 < f (t ) <. These two requirements are met by practically all the interior points in the range of the generic failure time T. With respect to the reference time t, we apply the following affine scaling to the failure time of the i th chain: i = l ( i t ) (5) (i = 1,,c). Namely, in the affine scaling of Eq. (5) the chains common length l is a positive scale parameter, and the reference time t is a real location parameter. Our interim goal is to analyze the limiting behavior of the chains scaled failure times in the case of a multitude of long chains: c and l. To that end we set our focus on the ensemble of the chains scaled failure times: { 1,, c }. Also, to that end we introduce the following asymptotic geometric coupling between the number c of the chains and the common length l of the chains: c F (t ) l 1. Specifically, the asymptotic geometric coupling is given by the limit lim c F (t ) l = 1. (6) c,l 4

5 We are now in position to state the following Poisson-process limit-law result. Proposition 1 The ensemble { 1,, c } converges in law, in the limit of Eq. (6), to a limiting ensemble P that is a Poisson process over the real line with the following intensity function: λ (x) = ε exp( εx) ( < x < ), where ε = f (t )/ F (t ). See the Appendix for the proof of proposition 1. Table 1 summarizes proposition 1 and its underlying setting. We now elaborate on the meaning of this proposition. A Poisson process is a countable collection of points that are scattered randomly over its domain, according to certain Poisson-process statistics that are determined by its intensity function [19]-[21]. Poisson processes are of key importance in probability theory, and their applications range from insurance and finance [8] to queueing systems [22], and from fractals [23] to power-laws [24]. In the case of the Poisson process P of proposition 1 the domain is the real line ( < x < ), and the intensity function is λ (x) = ε exp( εx). The points of the Poisson process P of proposition 1 manifest, in the limit of Eq. (6), the chains scaled failure times. The informal meaning of the intensity function λ (x) is the following: the probability that the infinitessimal interval (x, x + dx) contains a point of the Poisson process P is λ (x)dx, and this probability is independent of the scattering of points outside the interval (x,x + dx). The exponent ε = f (t )/ F (t ) of the intensity function λ (x) manifests the hazard rate of the generic failure time T at time t [25]-[26]: ε is the likelihood that the generic link will fail right after time t, conditioned on the information that the generic link did not fail up to time t. Specifically, this hazard rate is given by the following limit: 1 ε = lim 0 Pr(T t + T > t ). (7) The hazard rate is a widely applied tool in reliability engineering and risk management [25]-[26]. 3 Max-Min Having attained our interim goal via proposition 1, we now set the focus on the main object of our investigation: the strongest chain, i.e. the last chain standing. The failure time of the strongest chain is given by the maximum of the chains failure times: max = max{ 1,, c } (8) (i = 1,,c). Namely, the random variable max is the Max-Min over the entries of the random matrix T: for each and every row of the matrix pick the minimal entry, and then pick the rows largest minimal entry. As with the chains failure times, we apply the affine scaling of Eq. (5) to the failure time of the strongest chain: max = l ( max t ), (9) 5

6 where t is the above reference time. Also, as with the ensemble { 1,, c }, we analyze the limiting behavior of the random variable max in the case of a multitude of long chains: c and l. Here and hereinafter G denotes a standard Gumbel random variable. Namely, G is a real-valued random variable whose statistics are governed by the following Gumbel distribution function: Pr(G t) = exp[ exp( t)] (10) ( < t < ). We note that within the three extreme-value laws, Gumbel is the only law whose range is the entire real line. The three extreme-value laws have one-to-one correspondences with the maximal points of specific Poisson processes [27]. In particular, the Gumbel extreme-value law has a one-to-one correspondence with the maximal point of the Poisson process P of proposition 1. This connection leads to the following Gumbel limit-law result. Proposition 2 The random variable max converges in law, in the limit of Eq. (6), to a limiting random variable m G, where m = F (t )/ f (t ), and where G is the standard Gumbel random variable of Eq. (10). See the Appendix for the proof of proposition 2. Table 2 summarizes proposition 2 and its underlying setting. In Figure 1 we use numerical simulations to demonstrate Proposition 2. To that end nine different distributions of the generic failure time T are considered: exponential, gamma, log-normal, inverse-gauss, uniform, Weibull, beta, Pareto, and normal. In all nine cases, the convergence of the simulations to the theoretical prediction of proposition 2 is evident. Proposition 2 yields an asymptotic approximation for the Max-Min of large random matrices with dimensions c > l >> 1. Indeed, consider the matrix-dimensions (c and l) and the reference time (t ) to satisfy the relation c F (t ) l 1. Then, the Max-Min random variable max admits the following Gumbel asymptotic approximation in law: max G := t + m l G, (11) where m and G are as in proposition 2. The Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (11) has the following meaning: the deterministic asymptotic approximation of the Max-Min random variable max is the reference time t ; the magnitude of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation is m/l; and the statistics of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation are Gumbel. Table 3 summarizes the Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (11), and details the key statistical features of this approximation. The Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (11) can be applied as a design tool for the Max-Min. This design application is based on the fact that for Eq. (11) to hold it is required that the matrix-dimensions (c and l) and the reference time (t ) be properly coupled: c F (t ) l 1, where c > l >> 1. This design application comes in three versions. (I) If the chains common length is large (l >> 1), and the reference time is t, then the required number of chains is c 1/ F (t ) l. (II) If the number of chains is large (c >> 1), and the reference time is t, then the admissible common 6

7 length of the chains is l ln(c)/ln[ F (t )]. (III) If the chains common length is large (l >> 1), and the number of chains is larger (c > l), then the implied reference time is t = F 1 [(1/c) 1/l ]; for example, if c = 2 l then the implied reference time is the median of the generic failure time T. 4 Min-Max So far we addressed the Max-Min of the random matrix T: pick the minimum of each row i = min { } T i,1,,t i,l (i = 1,,c), and then pick the maximum of these minima max = max{ 1,, c }. Analogously, we can address the Min-Max of the random matrix T: pick the maximum of each column j = max { } T 1, j,,t c, j (12) ( j = 1,,l), and then pick the minimum of these maxima min = min{ 1,, l }. (13) To illustrate the application of the Min-Max random variable min consider the collection of the aforementioned c chains to be copies of a given DNA strand. The chains l links represent l sites along the DNA strand, where each of these sites codes a critical information item. The links generic failure time T manifests the time at which the information coded by a specific DNA site is damaged; namely, the matrix entry T i, j is the time at which the j th information item on the i th DNA copy is damaged. The j th information item is lost once all its c copies are damaged, and hence the failure time of the j th information item is given by Eq. (12). As all the l information items are critical, a system-failure occurs once any of the l information items is lost. Hence, the time of the system-failure is given by the Min-Max of Eq. (13). The Min-Max applies to a general setting in which l critical information items are stored on c different copies (backups), where: j = 1,,l is the index of the information items; i = 1,,c is the index of the copies; T i, j is the time at which the j th information item on the i th copy (backup) is damaged; and the entries of the random matrix T are IID real-valued random variables. The above DNA model was for the sake of illustration following the chains model of section 2, which we used in order to illustrate the Max-Min. The analysis presented above was with regard to the Max-Min. Analogous analysis holds with regard to the Min-Max. Indeed, consider the above reference time t, and apply the following affine scaling to the failure time of the j th information item: j = c ( j t ) (14) ( j = 1,,l). Also, introduce an asymptotic geometric coupling between the number l of the information items and the number c of the copies, given by the limit lim l F (t ) c = 1. (15) l,c Then, the following result is the counterpart of proposition 1. 7

8 Proposition 3 The ensemble { 1,, l } converges in law, in the limit of Eq. (15), to a limiting ensemble P that is a Poisson process over the real line with the following intensity function: λ (x) = ε exp(εx) ( < x < ), where ε = f (t )/F (t ). See the Appendix for the proof of proposition 3. Table 1 summarizes proposition 3 and its underlying setting. The notion of Poisson processes was tersely described right after proposition 1. The exponential intensity function λ (x) = ε exp(εx) of proposition 3, and the Poisson process P that this intensity characterizes, are most intimately related to the notion of accelerating change [28]; readers interested in a detailed analysis of the statistical structure of this Poisson process are referred to [28]. The exponent ε = f (t )/F (t ) has the following limit interpretation: ε = lim 0 1 Pr(T > t T t ), which is an analogue of the hazard rate of Eq. (7). Continuing on from proposition 3, and considering the above reference time t, we apply the affine scaling of Eq. (14) to the time of the system-failure: min = c ( min t ). (16) Then, as proposition 1 led to proposition 2, proposition 3 leads to the following result which is the Min-Max counterpart of proposition 2. Proposition 4 The random variable min converges in law, in the limit of Eq. (15), to a limiting random variable m G, where m = F (t )/ f (t ), and where G is the standard Gumbel random variable of Eq. (10). See the Appendix for the proof of proposition 4. Table 2 summarizes proposition 4 and its underlying setting. Proposition 4 yields an asymptotic approximation for the Min-Max of large random matrices with dimensions l > c >> 1. Indeed, consider the matrix-dimensions (l and c) and the reference time (t ) to satisfy the relation l F (t ) c 1. Then, the Min-Max random variable min admits the following Gumbel asymptotic approximation in law: min G := t m c G, (17) where m and G are as in proposition 4. The Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (17) is the Min-Max counterpart of the Max-Min Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (11). Specifically: the deterministic asymptotic approximation of the Min-Max random variable min is the reference time t ; the magnitude of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation is m/c; and the statistics of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation are Gumbel. Table 3 summarizes the Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (17), and details the key statistical features of this approximation. Similarly to the Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (11), the Gumbel asymptotic approximation of Eq. (17) can be applied as a design tool for the Min-Max. This design application is based on the fact that for Eq. (17) to hold it is required that the matrix-dimensions (c and l) and the reference time (t ) be properly coupled: l F (t ) c 1, where l > c >> 1. This design application comes in three versions. (I) If the number of copies is large (c >> 1), and the reference time is t, then the number of 8

9 information items that can stored reliably is l 1/F (t ) c. (II) If the number of information items is large (l >> 1), and the reference time is t, then the number of copies required is c ln(l)/ln[f (t )]. (III) If the number of copies is large (c >> 1), and the number of information items is larger (l > c), then the implied reference time is t = F 1 [(1/l) 1/c ]; for example, if l = 2 c then the implied reference time is the median of the generic failure time T. 5 Discussion We opened this paper with the fundamental theorem of EVT, and with a short discussion of the universality of the extreme-value laws emerging from this theorem. We now continue with the universality discussion, and to that end we recall the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) of probability theory [29]-[30]. As in the case of the fundamental theorem of EVT, the CLT applies to ensembles of IID real-valued random variables: {X 1,,X n } where the ensemble s n components are IID copies of a general real-valued random variable X. The input X is assumed to have a finite variance σ 2, and hence also a finite mean µ. Given a large ensemble (n >> 1), the CLT implies that the ensemble s average A n = (X X n )/n admits the following Normal asymptotic approximation in law: A n N := µ + σ n N, (18) where N is a standard Normal random variable (i.e. with zero mean and unit variance). The Normal asymptotic approximation of Eq. (18) has the following meaning: the deterministic asymptotic approximation of the ensemble s average A n is the mean µ; the magnitude of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation is σ/ n; and the statistics of the random fluctuations about the deterministic asymptotic approximation are Normal. It is illuminating to compare the extreme-value asymptotic approximation of Eq. (2), the Normal asymptotic approximation of Eq. (18), and the Gumbel asymptotic approximations of Eqs. (11) and (17). The comparison highlights the degree of universality of each of these asymptotic approximations, as we shall now describe. The extreme-value asymptotic approximation of Eq. (2) has the following key features. (I) The domains of attraction are characterized by narrow tail conditions: regular-variation conditions for the Weibull and Frechet extreme-value laws, and a complicated condition for the Gumbel extreme-value law (see theorems in [16]). (II) The deterministic asymptotic approximation δ n is highly dependent on the input X. (III) The fluctuations magnitude 1/s n is highly dependent on the input X. (IV) The limit L is universal one of the three extreme-value laws. The Normal asymptotic approximation of Eq. (18) has the following key features. (I) The domain of attraction is characterized by a wide moment condition: inputs X with a finite variance. (II) The deterministic asymptotic approximation µ is the input s mean. (III) The fluctuations magnitude σ/ n depends on the input X only via the coefficient σ (which is the input s standard deviation); hence the asymptotic order 9

10 O(1/ n) of the fluctuations magnitude is universal. (IV) The limit N is universal standard Normal. The Gumbel asymptotic approximations of Eqs. (11) and (17) have the following key features. (I) The domain of attraction is characterized by a wide smoothness condition: inputs T with a density function. (II) The deterministic asymptotic approximation t depends only on the range of the input T, and within this range we can set t essentially as we wish. (III) The fluctuations magnitudes m/l and m/c depend on the input T only via the coefficients m and m, respectively; hence the asymptotic orders O(1/l) and O(1/c) of the fluctuations magnitudes are universal. (IV) The limit G is universal standard Gumbel. The matrix-structure of the Max-Min and Min-Max results adds a second dimension to the inherent vector-structure of the fundamental theorem of EVT and of the CLT. This second dimension equips the former with an extra degree of freedom. In turn, this extra degree of freedom allows for the flexibility in the choice of the reference time t, thus enhancing the universality of the Gumbel asymptotic approximations of Eqs. (11) and (17). 6 Conclusion In this paper we explored the Max-Min max and the Min-Max min of a random matrix T with: c rows, l columns, and entries that are IID real-valued random variables. This IID setting is common to random-matrix theory, to the fundamental theorem of EVT, and to the Central Limit Theorem. The Max-Min and the Min-Max values of matrices emerge naturally in science and engineering, e.g. in game theory. We motivated the Max-Min random variable max by the following question: within a collection of c IID chains, each with l links, how long will the strongest chain hold? And, we motivated the Min-Max random variable min by the following question: how long can l critical information items be stored reliably on c IID copies (backups)? We showed that if the number of rows c and the number of columns l are large, and are coupled geometrically, then: both the Max-Min random variable max and the Min- Max random variable min admit, universally and in law, Gumbel asymptotic approximations. These Gumbel asymptotic approximations are similar, in form, to the Normal asymptotic approximation that follows from the Central Limit Theorem. Moreover, the Gumbel asymptotic approximations display a special feature: their deterministic part the reference time t is tunable. Hence, these Gumbel asymptotic approximations can be used as a universal design tool for the Max-Min and the Min-Max random variables, max and min. The Gumbel asymptotic approximations stand on Gumbel limit-law results, propositions 2 and 4. In turn, the Gumbel limit-law results stand on Poisson-process limitlaw results, propositions 1 and 3. These four limit-law results have vast domains of attraction, and are thus markedly universal as argued in the Discussion. With their generality and universality on the one hand, and their many potential applications on the other hand, the results established and presented in this paper are expected to serve diverse audiences in science and engineering. 10

11 Acknowledgments. R.M. acknowledges Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for funding (ME 1535/7-1) and support from the Foundation for Polish Science within an Alexander von Humboldt Polish Honorary Research Fellowship. S.R. gratefully acknowledges support from the Azrieli Foundation and the Sackler Center for Computational Molecular and Materials Science. 7 Appendix 7.1 A general Poisson-process limit-law result In this subsection we establish a general Poisson-process limit-law result. The setting of the general result is as follows. Consider X 1,,X n to be n IID copies of a generic random variable X. The random variable X is real-valued, and its density function is given by f θ (x) = κ θ g θ (x) (19) ( < x < ), where: θ is a positive parameter; κ θ is a positive constant; g θ (x) is a non-negative function. Consider the joint limits n and θ. We assume that the parameter n and the constant κ θ admit the following asymptotic coupling: where κ is a positive limit. Also, we assume that lim n κ θ = κ, (20) n,θ lim g θ (x) = g(x) (21) θ ( < x < ), where g(x) is a non-negative limit function. Now, let s analyze the asymptotic statistical behavior of the ensemble {X 1,,X n } in the joint limits n and θ. To that end we take a real-valued test function φ (x) ( < x < ), and compute the characteristic functional of the ensemble {X 1,,X n } with respect to this test function: E[φ (X 1 ) φ (X n )] = E[φ (X)] n = { φ (x) f θ (x)dx } n = { 1 [1 φ (x)] f θ (x)dx } n (22) = { 1 1 n [1 φ (x)][(nκ θ ) g θ (x)]dx } n (in Eq. (22) we used the IID structure of the ensemble {X 1,,X n }, and Eq. (19)). Applying the limits of Eqs. (20)-(21), Eq. (22) implies that: { } lim E[φ (X 1) φ (X n )] = exp [1 φ (x)][κ g(x)]dx. (23) n,θ 11

12 The characteristic functional of a Poisson process P over the real line, with intensity function λ (x) ( < x < ), is given by [19]: [ ] { } E φ (p) = exp [1 φ (x)]λ (x)dx, (24) p P where φ (x) ( < x < ) is a real-valued test function. Hence, combined together, Eqs. (23) and (24) yield the following general result: Proposition 5 The ensemble {X 1,,X n } converges in law, in the joint limits n and θ, to a Poisson process P over the real line with intensity function λ (x) = κ g(x) ( < x < ) 7.2 Proof of proposition 1 Eq. (4) implies that Pr( i > t) = Pr [ min { } ] T i,1,,t i,l > t = Pr(T i,1 > t) Pr ( T i,l > t ) (25) = Pr(T > t) l = F (t) l ( < t < ). Eq. (5) and Eq. (25) imply that Pr( i > t) = Pr[l ( i t ) > t] = Pr ( i > t + t l ) = F ( t + t l ) l (26) ( < t < ). Differentiating Eq. (26) with respect to the variable t implies that the density function of the scaled random variable i is given by d ( dt Pr( i > t) = F t + t ) l ( h t + t ) l l ( < t < ), where h(t) = f (t)/ F (t). In what follows we use the shorthand notation ε = h(t ). Note that the two basic requirements 0 < F (t ) < 1 and 0 < f (t ) < imply that: 0 < ε <. Now, apply proposition 5 to the following setting: n = c, θ = l, and X i = i (i = 1,,c). Eq. (27) implies that f θ (x) = F (t ) θ }{{} κ θ [ ( F t + θ x )] θ ( h t + x ) F (t ) θ } {{ } g θ (x) (27) (28) 12

13 ( < x < ). Note that [ ] θ [ F(t + θ x ) F(t ) f (t ) = x +o( θ θ 1 ) F(t ) F(t ) ] θ = [ 1 εx θ + o( 1 θ )] θ θ exp( εx) ( < x < ). Eqs. (28) and (29) imply that (29) lim g θ (x) = g(x) := ε exp( εx) (30) θ ( < x < ). Also, the asymptotic geometric coupling of Eq. (6) implies that the asymptotic coupling of Eq. (20) holds with κ = 1. Hence, the result of proposition 5 holds with the intensity function ( < x < ). This proves proposition Proof of proposition 2 λ (x) = ε exp( εx) (31) Set P to be a Poisson process, over the real line, with intensity function λ (x) = ε exp( εx) ( < x < ) and exponent ε = f (t )/ F (t ). Consider the number of points N (t) of the Poisson process P that reside above a real threshold t. The Poissonprocess statistics imply that the number N (t) is a Poisson-distributed random variable with mean E[N (t)] = t λ (x)dx = (32) t ε exp( εx)dx = exp( εt). Now, consider the maximal point M of the Poisson process P. This maximal point is no larger than the threshold t if and only if no points of the Poisson process P reside above this threshold: {M t} {N (t) = 0}. Hence, as N (t) is a Poisson-distributed random variable with mean E[N (t)], Eq. (32) implies that the distribution function of the maximal point M is given by Pr(M t) = exp[ exp( εt)] (33) ( < t < ). The distribution function of Eq. (33) characterizes the Gumbel law. A standard Gumbel-distributed random variable G is governed by the distribution function of Eq. (10): Pr(G t) = exp[ exp( t)] ( < t < ). Eqs. (33) and (10) imply that the maximal point M admits the following Gumbel representation in law: M = m G, (34) where m = 1/ ε = F (t )/ f (t ). Proposition 1 established that the ensemble { 1,, c } converges in law in the limit of Eq. (6) to the Poisson process P. Consequently, the maximum max of the ensemble { 1,, c } converges in law in the limit of Eq. (6) to the maximal point M of the Poisson process P. Hence, Eq. (34) proves proposition 2. 13

14 7.4 Proof of proposition 3 For the random variable j = max { T 1, j,,t c, j } we have Pr( j t) = Pr [ max { T 1, j,,t c, j } t ] = Pr ( T 1, j t ) Pr(T c, j t) (35) = Pr(T t) c = F (t) c ( < t < ). In turn, for the scaled random variable j = c ( j t ) Eq. (35) implies that Pr( j t) = Pr[c ( j t ) t] = Pr ( j t + c) t ( = F t + c t ) (36) c ( < t < ). Differentiating Eq. (36) with respect to the variable t implies that the density function of the scaled random variable j is given by d dt Pr( j t) = F ( t + t c ) c h ( t + t c ( < t < ), where h(t) = f (t)/f (t). In what follows we use the shorthand notation ε = h(t ). Note that the two basic requirements 0 < F (t ) < 1 and 0 < f (t ) < imply that: 0 < ε <. Now, apply proposition 5 to the following setting: n = l, θ = c, and X i = j ( j = 1,,l). Eq. (37) implies that ( < x < ). Note that [ f θ (x) = F (t ) θ }{{} κ θ ] θ [ F(t + θ x ) F(t ) = ) [ ( F t + θ x )] θ ( h t + x ) F (t ) θ } {{ } g θ (x) F(t )+ f (t ) θ x +o( ] θ θ 1 ) F(t ) = [ 1 + εx θ + o( 1 θ )] θ θ exp(εx) ( < x < ). Eqs. (38) and (39) imply that (37) (38) (39) lim g θ (x) = g(x) := ε exp(εx) (40) θ ( < x < ). Also, the asymptotic geometric coupling of Eq. (15) implies that the asymptotic coupling of Eq. (20) holds with κ = 1. Hence, the result of proposition 5 holds with the intensity function ( < x < ). This proves proposition 3. λ (x) = ε exp(εx) (41) 14

15 7.5 Proof of proposition 4 Set P to be a Poisson process, over the real line, with intensity function λ (x) = ε exp(εx) ( < x < ) and exponent ε = f (t )/F (t ). Consider the number of points N (t) of the Poisson process P that reside up to a real threshold t. The Poissonprocess statistics imply that the number N (t) is a Poisson-distributed random variable with mean E[N (t)] = t λ (x)dx = t ε exp(εx)dx = exp(εt). (42) Now, consider the minimal point M of the Poisson process P. This minimal point is larger than the threshold t if and only if no points of the Poisson process P reside up to this threshold: {M > t} {N (t) = 0}. Hence, as N (t) is a Poisson-distributed random variable with mean E[N (t)], Eq. (42) implies that the survival function of the minimal point M is given by Pr(M > t) = exp[ exp(εt)] (43) ( < t < ). A standard Gumbel-distributed random variable G is governed by the distribution function of Eq. (10): Pr(G t) = exp[ exp( t)] ( < t < ). Eqs. (43) and (10) imply that the minimal point M admits the following Gumbel representation in law: M = m G, (44) where m = 1/ε = F (t )/ f (t ). Proposition 3 established that the ensemble that the ensemble { 1,, l } converges in law in the limit of Eq. (15) to the Poisson process P. Consequently, the minimum min = min{ 1,, l } of the ensemble { 1,, l } converges in law in the limit of Eq. (15) to the minimal point M of the Poisson process P. Hence, Eq. (44) proves proposition 4. References [1] Galambos, J., The asymptotic theory of extreme order statistics (No. 04; QA274, G3.). [2] S. Coles, Coles, S., Bawa, J., Trenner, L. and Dorazio, P., An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values (Vol. 208). London: Springer. [3] De Haan, L. and Ferreira, A., Extreme value theory: an introduction. Springer Science & Business Media. [4] Castillo, E., Extreme value theory in engineering. Elsevier. [5] Kotz, S. and Nadarajah, S., Extreme value distributions: theory and applications. World Scientific. 15

16 [6] Beirlant, J., Goegebeur, Y., Segers, J. and Teugels, J.L., Statistics of extremes: theory and applications. John Wiley & Sons. [7] Reiss, R.D., Thomas, M. and Reiss, R.D., Statistical analysis of extreme values (Vol. 2). Basel: Birkhäuser. [8] Embrechts, P., Klüppelberg, C. and Mikosch, T., Modelling extremal events: for insurance and finance (Vol. 33). Springer Science & Business Media. [9] Scheirer, W.J., Extreme Value Theory-Based Methods for Visual Recognition. Synthesis Lectures on Computer Vision, 7(1), pp [10] Fisher, R.A. and Tippett, L.H.C., 1928, April. Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Vol. 24, No. 2, pp ). Cambridge University Press. [11] B. Gnedenko, Ann. Math. 44 (1943) 423 (translated and reprinted in: Breakthroughs in Statistics I, edited by S. Kotz and N.L. Johnson, pp , Springer, New York, 1992). [12] W. Weibull, Ingeniors Vetenskaps Akademiens, Stockholm (1939) 151. [13] W. Weibull, ASME J. Appl. Mech. 18 (1951) 293. [14] M. Fréchet, Ann. Soc. Polon. Math. Cracovie, 6 (1927) 93. [15] Gumbel, E.J., Statistics of extremes. Courier Corporation. [16] Bingham, N.H., Goldie, C.M. and Teugels, J.L., Regular variation (Vol. 27). Cambridge university press. [17] Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J., Game theory, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 393(12), p.80. [18] M. Maschler, M., Eilon Solan, and Shmuel Zamir, Game Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013). [19] Kingman, J.F.C., Poisson processes (Vol. 3). Clarendon Press. [20] Cox, D.R. and Isham, V., Point processes (Vol. 12). CRC Press. [21] Streit, R.L., Poisson point processes: imaging, tracking, and sensing. Springer Science & Business Media. [22] Wolff, R.W., Stochastic modeling and the theory of queues. Pearson College Division. [23] Lowen, S.B. and Teich, M.C., Fractal-based point processes (Vol. 366). John Wiley & Sons. 16

17 [24] Eliazar, I. and Klafter, J., A probabilistic walk up power laws. Physics Reports, 511(3), pp [25] Barlow, R.E. and Proschan, F., Mathematical theory of reliability (Vol. 17). Siam. [26] Finkelstein, M., Failure rate modelling for reliability and risk. Springer Science & Business Media. [27] Eliazar, I. and Sokolov, I.M., Gini characterization of extreme-value statistics. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 389(21), pp [28] Eliazar, I. and Shlesinger, M.F., Universality of accelerating change. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 494, pp [29] Feller, W., An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons. [30] Feller, W., An introduction to probability theory and its applications (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons. 17

18 Table 1 Proposition 1 Proposition 3 1. Quantity i = min { T i,1,,t i,l } j = max { T 1, j,,t c, j } 2. Scaling i = l ( i t ) j = c ( j t ) 3. Ensemble { 1,, c } { 1,, l } 4. Coupling lim c,l c F (t ) l = 1 lim l,c l F (t ) c = 1 5. Intensity λ (x) = ε exp( εx) λ (x) = ε exp(εx) 6. Exponent ε = f (t )/ F (t ) ε = f (t )/F (t ) Table 1: Summary of proposition 1 and proposition 3. Rows 1-3 summarize the underlying settings: the quantities under consideration, their affine scalings, and the ensembles under consideration. Rows 4-6 summarize the Poisson-process limit-law results: the required asymptotic geometric couplings of c and l, the intensity functions of the limiting Poisson processes (to which the ensembles converge in law), and their exponents. 18

19 Table 2 Proposition 2 Proposition 4 1. Quantity max = max{ 1,, c } min = min{ 1,, l } 2. Scaling max = l ( max t ) min = c ( min t ) 3. Coupling lim c,l c F (t ) l = 1 lim l,c l F (t ) c = 1 4. Limit lim c,l max = m G lim l,c min = m G 5. Magnitude m = F (t )/ f (t ) m = F (t )/ f (t ) Table 2: Summary of proposition 2 and proposition 4. Rows 1-2 summarize the quantities under consideration and their affine scalings. Rows 3-5 summarize the limitlaw results: the required asymptotic geometric couplings of c and l, the limiting Gumbel random variables (the convergences being in law), and the magnitude coefficients of the limiting Gumbel random variables. The term G appearing in row 4 is the standard Gumbel random variable of Eq. (10). 19

20 Table 3 Max-Min Min-Max 1. Asymptotics l >> 1 & c F (t ) l 1 c >> 1 & l F (t ) c 1 2. Approximation G := t + m l G G := t m c G 3. Magnitude m = F (t )/ f (t ) m = F (t )/ f (t ) 4. Mode t t 5. Median t ln[ln(2)] m 1l t + ln[ln(2)]m 1c 6. Mean t + γ m 1l t γm 1c 7. SD π m 6 1l πm 6 1c Table 3: Summary of the Max-Min and the Min-Max Gumbel asymptotic approximations of Eqs. (11) and (17). Rows 1-3 summarize the approximations: the required asymptotics, the resulting approximations, and the approximations magnitude coefficients. The term G appearing in row 2 is the standard Gumbel random variable of Eq. (10). Rows 4-7 summarize the approximations key statistical features: the modes, the medians, the means, and the standard deviations (SD). The term γ appearing in row 6 is the Euler-Mascheroni constant: γ =

21 Probability Density 1 l= Scaled Max-Min 10 5 Scaled Max-Min 10 l=25 Probability Density Probability Density 1 l=70 Theory Exponential Gamma Log-Normal Inv- Gaussian Uniform Weibull Beta Pareto Normal Scaled Max Min 10 Figure 1: demonstration of Proposition 2 (see section 3 for the details). We demon max /m, in law, to the strate, via simulations, the convergence of the scaled Max-Min standard Gumbel random variable G. The simulations are carried out via 105 random matrices with l = 5, 25, 70 links and c ' 1.25l chains. The colored symbols depict the simulations results. The solid black line depicts the density function of the standard Gumbel random variable G (with its 95% confidence interval shaded in grey). Nine different distributions of the generic failure time T are considered, and for all nine cases: as the number of links grows from l = 5 (top) to l = 25 (middle) and to l = 70 (bottom), the convergence of the simulations to the standard Gumbel density function is evident. 21