Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T17:04:31.190Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Skeletal stochastic differential equations for continuous-state branching processes

Part of: Stochastic processes Stochastic analysis Markov processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2019

D. Fekete ,
J. Fontbona  and
A. E. Kyprianou
D. Fekete*
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
J. Fontbona*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Chile
A. E. Kyprianou*
Affiliation:
University of Bath
*
*Postal address: College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Prince of Wales Road, Exeter, EX4 4SB, UK.
***Postal address: Centre for Mathematical Modelling, DIM CMM, UMI 2807 UChile-CNRS, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
****Postal address: Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is well understood that a supercritical continuous-state branching process (CSBP) is equal in law to a discrete continuous-time Galton–Watson process (the skeleton of prolific individuals) whose edges are dressed in a Poissonian way with immigration which initiates subcritical CSBPs (non-prolific mass). Equally well understood in the setting of CSBPs and superprocesses is the notion of a spine or immortal particle dressed in a Poissonian way with immigration which initiates copies of the original CSBP, which emerges when conditioning the process to survive eternally. In this article we revisit these notions for CSBPs and put them in a common framework using the well-established language of (coupled) stochastic differential equations (SDEs). In this way we are able to deal simultaneously with all types of CSBPs (supercritical, critical, and subcritical) as well as understanding how the skeletal representation becomes, in the sense of weak convergence, a spinal decomposition when conditioning on survival. We have two principal motivations. The first is to prepare the way to expand the SDE approach to the spatial setting of superprocesses, where recent results have increasingly sought the use of skeletal decompositions to transfer results from the branching particle setting to the setting of measure valued processes. The second is to provide a pathwise decomposition of CSBPs in the spirit of genealogical coding of CSBPs via Lévy excursions, albeit precisely where the aforesaid coding fails to work because the underlying CSBP is supercritical.

Keywords

Continuous-state branching processstochastic differential equationskeletal decompositionspine decomposition

MSC classification

Primary: 60J80: Branching processes (Galton-Watson, birth-and-death, etc.) 60H30: Applications of stochastic analysis (to PDE, etc.)
Secondary: 60G99: None of the above, but in this section
Type
Research Papers
Information
Journal of Applied Probability , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 1122 - 1150
Copyright
© Applied Probability Trust 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abraham, R. and Delmas, J.-F. (2012). A continuum-tree-valued Markov process. Ann. Prob. 40, 1167–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barczy, M., Li, Z. and Pap, G. (2015). Yamada–Watanabe results for stochastic differential equations with jumps. Internat. J. Stoch. Anal. 2015, 460472.Google Scholar
Berestycki, J., Fittipaldi, M. C. and Fontbona, J. (2018). Ray–Knight representation of flows of branching processes with competition by pruning of Lévy trees. Prob. Theory Relat. Fields 172, 725–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berestycki, J., Kyprianou, A. E. and Murillo-Salas, A. (2011). The prolific backbone for supercritical superprocesses. Stoch. Process. Appl. 121, 1315–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoin, J., Fontbona, J. and Martínez, S. (2008). On prolific individuals in a supercritical continuous-state branching process. J. Appl. Prob. 45, 714–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertoin, J. and Le Gall, J.-F. (2006). Stochastic flows associated to coalescent processes III: Limit theorems. Illinois J. Math. 50, 147–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, D. A. and Li, Z. (2006). Skew convolution semigroups and affine Markov processes. Ann. Prob. 34, 1103–1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, D. A. and Li, Z. (2012). Stochastic equations, flows and measure-valued processes. Ann. Prob. 40, 813–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duquesne, T. and Labbé, C. (2014). On the Eve property for CSBP. Electron. J. Prob. 19, 31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duquesne, T. and Le Gall, J.-F. (2005). Random trees, Lévy processes and spatial branching processes. Astérisque 281.Google Scholar
Duquesne, T. and Winkel, M. (2007). Growth of Lévy trees. Prob. Theory Relat. Fields 139, 313–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dynkin, E. B. and Kuznetsov, S. E. (2004). $\Bbb N$-measures for branching exit Markov systems and their applications to differential equations. Prob. Theory Relat. Fields 130, 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, M., Kyprianou, A. E. and Winkel, M. (2015). Spines, skeletons and the strong law of large numbers for superdiffusions. Ann. Prob. 43, 2545–2610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El Karoui, N. and Roelly, S. (1991). Propriétés de martingales, explosion et représentation de Lévy–Khintchine d’une classe de processus de branchement à valeurs mesures. Stoch. Process. Appl. 38, 239–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etheridge, A. M. and Williams, D. R. E. (2003). A decomposition of the $(1+\beta)$ -superprocess conditioned on survival. Proc. R. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 133, 829–847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethier, S. N. and Kurtz, T. G. (1986). Markov Processes. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. John Wiley, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, L. C. (1998). Partial Differential Equations, Vol. 19, Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI.Google Scholar
Evans, S. N. and O’Connell, N. (1994). Weighted occupation time for branching particle systems and a representation for the supercritical superprocess. Canad. Math. Bull. 37, 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fittipaldi, M. C. and Fontbona, J. (2012). On SDE associated with continuous-state branching processes conditioned to never be extinct. Electron. Commun. Probab. 17, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, Z. and Li, Z. (2010). Stochastic equations of non-negative processes with jumps. Stoch. Process. Appl. 120, 306–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, D. R. (1976). On possible rates of growth of age-dependent branching processes with immigration. J. Appl. Prob. 13, 138–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, S. C., Hesse, M. and Kyprianou, A. E. (2016). Branching Brownian motion in a strip: Survival near criticality. Ann. Prob. 44, 235–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurtz, T. (2011). Equivalence of stochastic equations and martingale problems. In Stochastic Analysis 2010, ed. Crisan, D., Springer, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyprianou, A. E. (2014). Fluctuations of Lévy Processes with Applications, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyprianou, A. E., Murillo-Salas, A. and Pérez, J. L. (2012). An application of the backbone decomposition to supercritical super-Brownian motion with a barrier. J. Appl. Prob. 49, 671–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyprianou, A. E., Pérez, J.-L. and Ren, Y.-X. (2014). The backbone decomposition for spatially dependent supercritical superprocesses. In Séminaire de Probabilités XLVI, Vol. 2123, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer, Berlin, pp. 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyprianou, A. E. and Ren, Y.-X. (2012). Backbone decomposition for continuous-state branching processes with immigration. Statist. Prob. Lett. 82, 139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, A. (2007). Quasi-stationary distributions and the continuous-state branching process conditioned to be never extinct. Electron. J. Prob. 12, 420–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, A. (2008). Population dynamics and random genealogies. Stoch. Models 24, 45–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Gall, J.-F. (1999). Spatial Branching Processes, Random Snakes and Partial Differential Equations. Lectures in Mathematics, ETH Zürich. Birkhäuser, Basel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Gall, J.-F. and Le Jan, Y. (1998). Branching processes in Lévy processes: Laplace functionals of snakes and superprocesses. Ann. Prob. 26, 1407–1432.Google Scholar
Le Gall, J.-F. and Le Jan, Y. (1998). Branching processes in Lévy processes: The exploration process. Ann. Prob. 26 213–252.Google Scholar
Li, Ch.-Kh. (2001). Skew convolution semigroups and related immigration processes. Teor. Veroyat. Primen. 46, 247–274.Google Scholar
Li, Z.-H. (1996). Immigration structures associated with Dawson–Watanabe superprocesses. Stoch. Process. Appl. 62, 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z.-H. (1998). Immigration processes associated with branching particle systems. Adv. Appl. Prob. 30, 657–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. (2011). Measure-Valued Branching Markov Processes. Probability and its Applications. Springer, Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. (2014). Path-valued branching processes and nonlocal branching superprocesses. Ann. Prob. 42, 41–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Z. (2019). Continuous-state branching processes with immigration. Preprint, arXiv:1901.03521.Google Scholar
Milos, P. (2012). Spatial CLT for the supercritical Ornstein–Uhlenbeck superprocess. Preprint, arXiv:1203.6661.Google Scholar
Protter, P. (1990). Stochastic Integration and Differential Equations, Vol. 21 of Applications of Mathematics (New York). Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revuz, D. and Yor, M. (1999). Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion, 3rd edn, Vol. 293 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer, Berlin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roelly-Coppoletta, S. and Rouault, A. (1989). Processus de Dawson–Watanabe conditionné par le futur lointain. C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 309, 867–872.Google Scholar
Salisbury, T. S. and Verzani, J. (1999). On the conditioned exit measures of super Brownian motion. Prob. Theory Relat. Fields 115, 237–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salisbury, T. S. and Verzani, J. (2000). Non-degenerate conditionings of the exit measures of super Brownian motion. Stoch. Process. Appl. 87, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheu, Y.-C. (1997). Lifetime and compactness of range for super-Brownian motion with a general branching mechanism. Stoch. Process. Appl. 70, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar