Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:45:38.018Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Skeletons of Near-Critical Bienaymé-Galton-Watson Branching Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2016

Serik Sagitov*
Affiliation:
Chalmers University of Technology and Gothenburg University
Maria Conceição Serra*
Affiliation:
Minho University
*
Postal address: Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers and Gothenburg University, SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden. Email address: [email protected]
∗∗ Postal address: Center of Mathematics, Minho University, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal. Email address: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Skeletons of branching processes are defined as trees of lineages characterized by an appropriate signature of future reproduction success. In the supercritical case a natural choice is to look for the lineages that survive forever (O'Connell (1993)). In the critical case it was suggested that the particles with the total number of descendants exceeding a certain threshold could be distinguished (see Sagitov (1997)). These two definitions lead to asymptotic representations of the skeletons as either pure birth process (in the slightly supercritical case) or critical birth-death processes (in the critical case conditioned on the total number of particles exceeding a high threshold value). The limit skeletons reveal typical survival scenarios for the underlying branching processes. In this paper we consider near-critical Bienaymé-Galton-Watson processes and define their skeletons using marking of particles. If marking is rare, such skeletons are approximated by birth and death processes, which can be subcritical, critical, or supercritical. We obtain the limit skeleton for a sequential mutation model (Sagitov and Serra (2009)) and compute the density distribution function for the time to escape from extinction.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Applied Probability Trust 

References

Athreya, K. B. and Ney, P. E. (1972). Branching Processes. Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethier, S. N. and Kurtz, T. G. (1986). Markov Processes: Characterisation and Convergence. John Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haccou, P., Jagers, P. and Vatutin, V. A. (2007). Branching Processes: Variation, Growth, and Extinction of Populations. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iwasa, Y., Michor, F. and Nowak, M. A. (2003). Evolutionary dynamics of escape from biomedical intervention. Proc. R. Soc. London B 270, 25732578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwasa, Y., Michor, F. and Nowak, M. A. (2004). Evolutionary dynamics of invasion and escape. J. Theoret. Biol. 226, 205214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Connell, N. (1993). Yule process approximation for the skeleton of a branching process. J. Appl. Prob. 30, 725729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagitov, S. (1997). Limit skeleton for critical Crump–Mode–Jagers branching processes. In Classical and Modern Branching Processes (IMA Vol. Math. Appl. 84), Springer, New York, pp. 295303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagitov, S. and Serra, M. C. (2009). Multitype Bienaymé–Galton–Watson processes escaping exctinction. Adv. Appl. Prob. 41, 225246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevast'yanov, B. A. (1971). Vetvyashchiesya Protsessy. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian). German translation: Sewastjanow, B. A. (1974). Verzweigungsprozesse. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Taïb, Z. (1992). Branching Processes and Neutral Evolution (Lecture Notes Biomath. 93), Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar