FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES
By Giacomo Aletti∗ Nikolai Leonenko§ Ely Merzbach‡
∗ ADAMSS

Center & Università degli Studi di Milano, Italy
University, United Kingdom
‡ Bar-Ilan University, Israel

arXiv:1601.08136v4 [math.PR] 14 Dec 2017

§ Cardiff

We present new properties for the Fractional Poisson process and
the Fractional Poisson field on the plane. A martingale characterization for Fractional Poisson processes is given. We extend this result to
Fractional Poisson fields, obtaining some other characterizations. The
fractional differential equations are studied. We consider a more general Mixed-Fractional Poisson process and show that this process is
the stochastic solution of a system of fractional differential-difference
equations. Finally, we give some simulations of the Fractional Poisson
field on the plane.

There are several different approaches to the fundamental concept of Fractional Poisson process
(FPP) on the real line. The “renewal” definition extends the characterization of the Poisson process
as a sum of independent non-negative exponential random variables. If one changes the law of
interarrival times to the Mittag-Leffler distribution (see [32, 33, 44]), the FPP arises. A second
approach is given in [6], where the renewal approach to the Fractional Poisson process is developed
and it is proved that its one-dimensional distributions coincide with the solution to fractionalized
state probabilities. In [34] it is shown that a kind of Fractional Poisson process can be constructed
by using an “inverse subordinator”, which leads to a further approach.
In [26], following this last method, the FPP is generalized and defined afresh, obtaining a Fractional Poisson random field (FPRF) parametrized by points of the Euclidean space R2+ , in the same
spirit it has been done before for Fractional Brownian fields, see, e.g., [17, 20, 22, 30].
The starting point of our extension will be the set-indexed Poisson process which is a well-known
concept, see, e.g., [17, 22, 37, 38, 47].
In this paper, we first present a martingale characterization of the Fractional Poisson process. We
extend this characterization to FPRF using the concept of increasing path and strong martingales.
This characterization permits us to give a definition of a set-indexed Fractional Poisson process.
We study the fractional differential equation for FPRF. Finally, we study Mixed-Fractional Poisson
processes.
The paper is organized as follows. In the next section, we collect some known results from the
theory of subordinators and inverse subordinators, see [8, 36, 49, 50] among others. In Section 2, we
prove a martingale characterization of the FPP, which is a generalization of the Watanabe Theorem.
In Section 3, another generalization called “Mixed-Fractional Poisson process” is introduced and
some distributional properties are studied as well as Watanabe characterization is given. Section 4
is devoted to FPRF. We begin by computing covariance for this process, then we give some characterizations using increasing paths and intensities. We present a Gergely-Yeshow characterization
§

N. Leonenko was supported in particular by Cardiff Incoming Visiting Fellowship Scheme and International
Collaboration Seedcorn Fund and Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project number
DP160101366)
MSC 2010 subject classifications: Primary 60G55, 60G60; secondary 60G44, 60G57, 62E10, 60E07
Keywords and phrases: Fractional Poisson fields, inverse subordinator, martingale characterization, second order
statistics, fractional differential equations

1

2

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

and discuss random time changes. Fractional differential equations are discussed on Section 5.
Finally, we present some simulations for the FPRF.
1. Inverse Subordinators. This section collects some known resuts from the theory of subordinators and inverse subordinators [8, 36, 49, 50].
1.1. Subordinators and their inverse. Consider an increasing Lévy process L = {L(t), t ≥ 0},
starting from 0, which is continuous from the right with left limits (cadlag), continuous in probability, with independent and stationary increments. Such a process is known as a Lévy subordinator
with Laplace exponent
Z
(1 − e−sx )Π(dx), s ≥ 0,
φ(s) = µs +
(0,∞)

where µ ≥ 0 is the drift and the Lévy measure Π on R+ ∪ {0} satisfies
Z ∞
min(1, x)Π(dx) < ∞.
0

This means that
Ee−sL(t) = e−tφ(s) , s ≥ 0.
Consider the inverse subordinator Y (t), t ≥ 0, which is given by the first-passage time of L :
Y (t) = inf {u ≥ 0 : L(u) > t} , t ≥ 0.
The process Y (t), t ≥ 0, is non-decreasing and its sample paths are a.s. continuous if L is strictly
increasing.
We have
{(ui , ti ) : L(ui ) < ti , i = 1, . . . , n} = {(ui , ti ) : Y (ti ) > ui , i = 1, . . . , n} ,
and it is known [39, 41, 49, 50] that for any p > 0, EY p (t) < ∞.
Let U (t) = EY (t) be the renewal function. Since
Z ∞
1
Ũ (s) =
U (t)e−st dt =
,
sφ(s)
0
then Ũ characterizes the inverse process Y , since φ characterizes L.
We get a covariance formula [49, 50]
Z

min(t,s)

(U (t − τ ) + U (s − τ ))dU (τ ) − U (t)U (s).

Cov(Y (t), Y (s)) =
0

The most important example is considered in the next section, but there are some other examples.
1.2. Inverse stable subordinators. Let Lα = {Lα (t), t ≥ 0}, be an α−stable subordinator with
φ(s) = sα , 0 < α < 1. The density of Lα (1) is of the form [48]
∞
1X
Γ(αk + 1) 1
1
gα (x) =
(−1)k+1
sin(πkα) = W−α,0 (−x−α ).
αk+1
π
k!
x
x
k=1

(1.1)

3

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

Here we use the Wright’ s generalized Bessel function (see, e.g., [16])
Wγ,β (z) =

∞
X
k=0

zk
,
Γ(1 + k)Γ(β + γk)

z ∈ C,

(1.2)

where γ > −1, and β ∈ R. The set of jump times of Lα is a.s. dense. The Lévy subordinator is
strictly increasing, since the process Lα admits a density.
Then the inverse stable subordinator
Yα (t) = inf{u ≥ 0 : Lα (u) > t}
has density [36, p.110] (see also [43])
fα (t, x) =

1
1
d
t
P{Yα (t) ≤ x} = x−1− α gα (tx− α ),
dx
α

The Laplace transform of the density fa (t, x) is
Z ∞
α
e−st fα (t, x)dt = sα−1 e−xs ,

x > 0,

t > 0.

s ≥ 0,

(1.3)

(1.4)

0

Its paths are continuous and nondecreasing. For α = 1/2, the inverse stable subordinator is the
running supremum process of Brownian motion, and for α ∈ (0, 1/2) this process is the local time
at zero of a strictly stable Lévy process of index α/(1 − α).
Let
∞
X
zk
Eα (z) =
, α > 0, z ∈ C
(1.5)
Γ(αk + 1)
k=0

be the Mittag-Leffler function [16], and recall the following:
i) The Laplace transform of function Eα (−λtα ) is of the form
Z ∞
sα−1
e−st Eα (−λtα )dt =
, 0 < α < 1, t ≥ 0, <(s) > |λ|1/α .
λ + sα
0
(ii) The function Eα (λtα ) is an eigenfunction at the the fractional Caputo-Djrbashian derivative
with eigenvalue λ [36, p.36]

Dαt

Dαt Eα (λtα ) = λEα (λtα ),

0 < α < 1, λ ∈ R,

where Dαt is defined as (see [36])
Dαt u(t) =

1
Γ(1 − α)

Z
0

t

du(τ ) dτ
,
dτ (t − τ )α

0 < α < 1.

(1.6)

Note that the classes of functions for which the Caputo-Djrbashian derivative is well defined are
discussed in [36, Sections 2.2. and 2.3] (in particular one can use the class of absolutely continuous
functions).
Proposition 1.1.

The α-stable inverse subordinators satisfy the following properties:

(i)
−sYα (t)

Ee

∞
X
(−stα )n
=
= Eα (−stα ),
Γ(αn + 1)
n=0

s > 0.

4

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

(ii) Both processes Lα (t), t ≥ 0 and Yα (t) are self-similar
Lα (at) d
Yα (at) d
= Lα (t),
= Yα (t),
1/α
aα
a

a > 0.

(iii) For 0 < t1 < · · · < tk ,
∂ k E(Yα (t1 ) · · · Yα (tk ))
1
1
.
= k
∂t1 · · · ∂tk
Γ (α) [t1 (t2 − t1 ) · · · (tk − tk−1 )]1−α
In particular,
(A)
EYα (t) =

tα
Γ(ν + 1) αν
; E[Yα (t)]ν =
t ,
Γ(1 + α)
Γ(αν + 1)

ν > 0;

(B)
1
Cov(Yα (t), Yα (s)) =
Γ(1 + α)Γ(α)

Z

min(t,s)

((t − τ )α + (s − τ )α ) τ α−1 dτ −

0

(st)α
. (1.7)
Γ2 (1 + α)

Proof. See [8, 49, 50].
1.3. Mixture of inverse subordinators. This subsection collects some results from the theory of
inverse subordinators, see [49, 50, 36, 5, 28].
Different kinds of inverse subordinators can be considered.
Let Lα1 and Lα2 be two independent stable subordinators. The mixture of them Lα1 ,α2 =
{Lα1 ,α2 (t), t ≥ 0} is defined by its Laplace transform: for s ≥ 0, C1 + C2 = 1, C1 ≥ 0, C2 ≥
0, α1 < α2 ,
(1.8)
Ee−sLα1 ,α2 (t) = exp{−t(C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 )}.
It is possible to prove that
1

1

t ≥ 0,

Lα1 ,α2 (t) = (C1 ) α1 Lα1 (t) + (C2 ) α2 Lα2 (t),
1

1

1

1

is not self-similar, unless α1 = α2 = α, since Lα1 ,α2 (at) =d (C1 ) α1 a α1 Lα1 (t) + (C2 ) α2 a α2 Lα2 (t).
1
This expression is equal to a α Lα1 ,α2 (t) for any t > 0 if and only if α1 = α2 = α, in which case the
process Lα1 ,α2 can be reduced to the classical stable subordinator (up to a constant).
The inverse subordinator is defined by
Yα1 ,α2 (t) = inf{u ≥ 0 : Lα1 ,α2 (u) > t},

t ≥ 0.

(1.9)

We assume that C2 6= 0 without loss of generality (the case C2 = 0 reduces to the previous case of
single inverse subordinator).
It was proved in [28] that
Ũ (t) =

(C1

sα1

1 α2
1
C1 α2 −α1
, U (t) =
t Eα2 −α1 ,α2 +1 (− C
t
),
α
2
2
+ C2 s )s
C2

where Eα,β (z) is the two-parametric Generalized Mittag-Leffler function ([14, 16])
Eα,β (z) =

∞
X
k=0

zk
, α > 0, β > 0, z ∈ C.
Γ(αk + β)

(1.10)

5

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

d
Also for the Laplace transform of the density fα1 ,α2 (t, u) = du
P{Yα1 ,α2 (t) ≤ u}, u ≥ 0, of the
inverse subordinator Yα1 ,α2 = {Yα1 ,α2 (t), t ≥ 0}, we have the following expression [35]:
Z ∞
1
α1
α2
˜
e−st fα1 ,α2 (t, u)dt = [C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 ]e−u[C1 s +C2 s ] , s ≥ 0,
fα1 ,α2 (s, u) =
(1.11)
s
0

and the Laplace transform of f˜ is given by
Z ∞
φ(s)
C1 sα1 −1 + C2 sα2 −1
e−pu f˜α1 ,α2 (s, u)du =
=
,
s(p + φ(s))
p + C 1 s α1 + C 2 s α2
0

p ≥ 0.

(1.12)

From [5, Theorem 2.3] we have the following expression for u ≥ 0, t > 0:
fα1 ,α2 (t, u) =

∞
C1 X 1
C1 |u|
C2 |u|
(− α2 )r W−α1 ,1−α2 r−α1 (− α1 )+
α
1
λt
r!
λt
λt
r=0

+

∞
C2 |u|
C1 |u|
C2 X 1
(− α1 )r W−α2 ,1−α1 r−α2 (− α2 ).
α
2
λt
r!
λt
λt

(1.13)

r=0

One can also consider the tempered stable inverse subordinator, the inverse subordinator to the
Poisson process, the compound Poisson process with positive jumps, the Gamma and the inverse
Gaussian Lévy processes. For additional details see [28, 49, 50].
2. Fractional Poisson Processes and Martingales.

2.1. Preliminaries. The first definition of FPP Nα = {Nα (t), t ≥ 0} was given in [32] (see also
[33]) as a renewal process with Mittag-Leffler waiting times between the events
Nα (t) = max {n : T1 + ... + Tn ≤ t} =

∞
X

1{T1 +...+Tj ≤t} ,

t ≥ 0,

j=1

where {Tj } , j = 1, 2, . . . are iid random variables with the strictly monotone Mittag-Leffler distribution function
Fα (t) = P (Tj ≤ t) = 1 − Eα (−λtα ),

t ≥ 0, 0 < α < 1,

j = 1, 2, . . .

The following stochastic representation for FPP is found in [34]:
Nα (t) = N (Yα (t)),

t ≥ 0,

α ∈ (0, 1),

where N = {N (t), t ≥ 0}, is the classical homogeneous Poisson process with parameter λ > 0, which
is independent of the inverse stable subordinator Yα . One can compute the following expression for
the one-dimensional distribution of FPP (see [46]):
(α)

=

∞
(λtα )k X

k!

∞

Z

P (Nα (t) = k) = pk (t) =

j=1

0

e−λx (λx)k
fα (t, x)dx
k!

(k + j)!
(−λtα )j
(λtα )k (k)
=
Eα (−λtα )
j! Γ(α(j + k) + 1)
k!

6

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH
k+1
= (λtα )k Eα,αk+1
(−λtα ),

k = 0, 1, 2..., t ≥ 0,

0 < α < 1,

(k)

where fα is given by (1.3), Eα (z) is the Mittag-Leffler function (1.5), Eα (z) is the k−th derivative
γ
of Eα (z), and Eα,β
(z) is the three-parametric Generalized Mittag-Leffler function defined as follows
[16, 42]:
∞
X
(γ)j z j
γ
Eα,β
(z) =
, α > 0, β > 0, γ > 0, z ∈ C,
(2.1)
j!Γ(αj + β)
j=0

where

(
1
if j = 0;
(γ)j =
γ(γ + 1) · · · (γ + j − 1) if j = 1, 2, . . .

is the Pochhammer symbol.
Finally, in [6, 7] it is shown that the marginal distribution of FPP satisfies the following system
of fractional differential-difference equations (see [25]):
(α)

(α)

(α)

Dαt pk (t) = −λ(pk (t) − pk−1 (t)),
(α)

(α)

k = 0, 1, 2, . . .
(α)

with initial conditions: p0 (0) = 1, pk (0) = 0, k ≥ 1, and p−1 (t) = 0, where Dαt is the fractional
Caputo-Djrbashian derivative (1.6). See also [11].
Remark.

Note that


ENα (t) = E E[N (Yα (t))|Yα (t)] =

Z

∞

[EN (u)]fα (t, u)du = λtα /Γ(1 + α),

0

where fα (t, u) is given by (1.3), and [28] showed that
Cov(Nα (t), Nα (s)) =

λ(min(t, s))α
+ λ2 Cov(Yα (t), Yα (s)),
Γ(1 + α)

(2.2)

where Cov(Yα (t), Yα (s)) is given in (1.7) while Cov(N (t), N (s)) = λ min(t, s). In particular,
i
2
1
λtα
− 2
+
Γ(1 + 2α) Γ (1 + α)
Γ(1 + α)


2
2α
α
λ t
αΓ(α)
λt
= 2
−1 +
, t ≥ 0.
Γ (1 + α) Γ(2α)
Γ(1 + α)

VarNα (t) = λ2 t2α

h

(2.3)

The definition of the Hurst index for renewal processes is discussed in [14]. In the same spirit, one
can define the analogous of the Hurst index for the FPP as


VarNα (T )
H = inf β : lim sup
< ∞ ∈ (0, 1).
T 2β
T →∞
To prove the formula (2.2), one can use the conditional covariance formula [45, Exercise 7.20.b]:


Cov(Z1 , Z2 ) = E Cov(Z1 , Z2 |Y ) + Cov E(Z1 |Y ), E(Z2 |Y ) ,
where Z1 , Z2 and Y are random variables, and

Cov(Z1 , Z2 |Y ) = E (Z1 − E(Z1 |Y ))(Z2 − E(Z2 |Y )) .

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

7

Really, if
Gt,s (u, v) = P{Yα (t) ≤ u, Yα (s) ≤ v},
then E(N (Yα (t))|Yα (t)) = E(N (1)) · Yα (t) = λYα (t), and
Z ∞Z ∞



Cov(Yα (t), Yα (s)) = Var N (1)
min(u, v)Gt,s (du, dv) + Cov λYα (t), λYα (s)
0

0

= λE(Yα (min(t, s))) + λ2 Cov(Yα (t), Yα (s)),
since, for example, if s ≤ t, then v = Yα (s) ≤ Yα (t) = u, and
Z ∞
Z ∞ Z ∞
Z ∞Z ∞
v dP{Yα (s) ≤ v} = E(Yα (s)).
Gt,s (du, dv) =
v
vGt,s (du, dv) =
0

0

0

0

0

Remark. For more than one random variable in the condition, the conditional covariance
formula becomes more complicated, it can be seen even for the conditional variance formula:



Var(Z) = E Var(Z|Y1 , Y2 ) + E Var[E(Z|Y1 , Y2 )]|Y1 + Var E(Z|Y1 ) .
The corresponding formulas can be found in [9]. That is why for random fields we develop another
technique, see Appendix.
2.2. Watanabe characterization. Let (Ω, F, P) be a complete probability space. Recall that
the Ft −adapted, P-integrable stochastic process M = {M (t), t ≥ 0} is an Ft −martingale (submartingale) if E(M (t)|Fs ) = (≥)M (s), 0 ≤ s ≤ t, a.s., where {Ft } is a non-decreasing family of
sub-sigma fields of F. A point process N is called simple if its jumps are of magnitude +1. It is
locally finite when it does not have infinite jumps in a bounded region. The following theorem
is known as the Watanabe characterization for homogeneous Poisson processes (see, [51] and [10,
p. 25]):
Theorem 2.1. Let N = {N (t), t ≥ 0} be a Ft −adapted, simple locally finite point process.
Then N is a homogeneous Poisson process iff there is a constant λ > 0, such that the process
M (t) = N (t) − λt is an Ft −martingale.
We extend the well-known Watanabe characterization for FPP. The following result may be seen
as a corollary of the Watanabe characterization for Cox processes as in [10, Chapetr II]. We will
make use of the following lemma.
Lemma 2.1 (Doob’s Optional Sampling Theorem). Let M be a right-continuous martingale.
Then, if T and S are stopping times such that P (T < +∞) = 1 and {M (t ∧ T ), t ≥ 0} is uniformly
integrable, then E(M (T )|FS∧T ) = M (S ∧ T ).
Proof. Define N = {N (t) = M (t∧T ), t ≥ 0}. Then N is a right-continuous uniformly integrable
martingale such that limt→+∞ N (t) = M (T ). Moreover, N (S) = M (T ∧ S). The thesis is hence a
consequence of the Doob’s Optional Sampling Theorem (see, e.g., [23, Theorem 7.29] with X = N ,
τ ≡ +∞ and σ = S).
Theorem 2.2. Let X = {X(t), t ≥ 0} be a simple locally finite point process. Then X is a FPP
iff there exist a constant λ > 0, and an α-stable subordinator Lα = {Lα (t), t ≥ 0}, 0 < α < 1, such
that, denoted by Yα (t) = inf{s : Lα (s) ≥ t} its inverse stable subordinator, the process
M = {M (t), t ≥ 0} = {X(t) − λYα (t), t ≥ 0}

8

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

is a right-continuous martingale with respect to the induced filtration Ft = σ(X(s), s ≤ t) ∨
σ(Yα (s), s ≥ 0) such that, for any T > 0,
{M (τ ), τ stopping time s.t. Yα (τ ) ≤ T }

(2.4)

is uniformly integrable.
Proof. If X is a FPP, then X(t) = N (Yα (t)), where Yα is the inverse of an α-stable subordinator
and N is a Poisson process with intensity λ > 0.
Note that X ≥ 0 and (Yα ≥ 0 are monotone non-decreasing, and hence the boundenesses in L2
given by (2.3) and Proposition 1.1 iiiA) imply that {N (Yα (t)) − λYα (t), 0 ≤ t ≤ T } is uniformly
integrable (see, for example, [23, pag. 67]). Therefore N (Yα (t)) − λYα (t) is still a martingale, by
Lemma 2.1. Notice that Yα (t) is continuous increasing and adapted; therefore it is the predictable
intensity of the sub-martingale X.
Now, let τ be a stopping time s.t. Yα (τ ) ≤ T , and hence λYα (τ ) ≤ λT . Then, since N is a Poisson
process with intensity λ > 0, M̃ (t) = M (τ ∧ t) is a martingale bounded in L2 and null at 0, and
therefore it converges in L2 to M (τ ), with variance bounded by
E(M 2 (τ )) = lim E(M 2 (τ ∧ t)) ≤ Var(N (T )) + Var(Yα (τ )) ≤ const · (1 + T 2 ).
t→∞

Then the family (2.4) is uniformly bounded in L2 , which implies the thesis.
Conversely, it is enough to prove that X(t) = N (Yα (t)), where N is a Poisson process, independent of Yα .
Consider the inverse of Yα (t) :
Z(t) = inf{s : Yα (s) ≥ t}.
{Z(t), t ≥ 0} can be seen as a family of stopping times. Then, by Lemma 2.1,
M (Z(t)) = X(Z(t)) − λYα (Z(t))
is still a martingale. The fact that Yα is continuous implies that Yα (Z(t)) = t, and hence X(Z(t))−λt
is a martingale. Moreover, since Z(t) is increasing, X(Z(t)) is a simple point process.
Following the classical Watanabe characterization, X(Z(t)) is a classical Poisson process with
parameter λ > 0. Call this process N (t) = X(Z(t)). Then X(t) = N (Yα (t)) is a FPP.
For recent developments and random change time results, see also [31, 40]. In particular, we
thank a referee to have outlined that a similar result has been obtained in [40, Lemma 3.2].
3. Mixed-Fractional Poisson Processes.
3.1. Definition. In this section, we consider a more general Mixed-Fractional Poisson process
(MFPP)
N α1 ,α2 = {N α1 ,α2 (t), t ≥ 0} = {N (Yα1 ,α2 (t)), t ≥ 0},
(3.1)
where the homogeneous Poisson process N with intensity λ > 0, and the inverse subordinator
Yα1 ,α2 given by (1.9) are independent. We will show that N α1 ,α2 is the stochastic solution of the
system of fractional differential-difference equations: for k = 0, 1, 2, . . .,
(α1 ,α2 )

C1 Dαt 1 pk

(α1 ,α2 )

(t) + C2 Dαt 2 pk

(α1 ,α2 )

(t) = −λ(pk

(α ,α2 )

1
(t) − pk−1

(t)),

(3.2)

9

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

with initial conditions:
(α1 ,α2 )

p0

(α1 ,α2 )

(0) = 1, pk

(α ,α2 )

(0) = 0, p−11

(t) = 0,

k ≥ 1,

(3.3)

where Dαt is the fractional Caputo-Djrbashian derivative (1.6), and for C1 ≥ 0, C2 > 0, C1 + C2 = 1,
α1 , α2 ∈ (0, 1),
(α ,α )
pk 1 2 (t) = P{N α1 ,α2 (t) = k},
k = 0, 1, 2 . . .
3.2. Distribution Properties. Using the formulae for Laplace transform of the fractional CaputoDjrbashian derivative (see, [36, p.39]):
Z ∞
e−st Dαt u(t)dt = sα u(0+ ) − sα−1 u(0), 0 < α < 1,
0

one can obtain from (3.2) with k = 0 the following equation
C1 sα1 p̃0 (s) − C1 sα1 −1 + C2 sα2 p̃0 (s) − C2 sα2 −1 = −λp̃0 (s), p̃0 (0) = 1,
for the Laplace transform
(α1 ,α2 )

p̃0

∞

Z
(s) = p̃0 (s) =
0

Thus
p̃0 (s) =

(α1 ,α2 )

e−st p0

C1 sα1 −1 + C2 sα2 −1
,
λ + C 1 s α1 + C 2 s α2

(t)dt,

s ≥ 0.

s ≥ 0,

and using the formula for an inverse Laplace transform (see, [16]), for <α > 0, <β > 0, <s >
0, <(α − ρ) > 0, <(α − β) > 0, and |asβ /(sα + b)| < 1:
L−1



∞

X
sρ−1
r+1
α−ρ
;
t
=
t
(−a)r t(α−β)r Eα,α+(α−β)r−ρ+1
(−btα ),
sα + asβ + b

(3.4)

r=0

(α1 ,α2 )

one can find an exact form of the p0
(α ,α )
p0 1 2 (t)

(t) in terms of generalized Mittag-Leffler functions (2.1):




∞ 
X
λ α2
C1 α2 −α1 r r+1
Eα2 ,(α2 −α1 )r+1 − t
=
− t
C2
C2
r=0




∞
X
C1 α2 −α1 r+1 r+1
λ α2
−
− t
Eα2 ,(α2 −α1 )(r+1)+1 − t
.
C2
C2

(3.5)

r=0

For k ≥ 1,we obtain from (3.2):
p̃k (s)(λ + C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 ) = λp̃k−1 (s),
where
(α ,α )
p̃k 1 2 (s)

Z
= p̃k (s) =
0

∞

(α1 ,α2 )

e−st pk

(t)dt,

s ≥ 0.
(α1 ,α2 )

Thus from (3.2) we obtain the following expression for the Laplace transform of pk

p̃k (s) =

λ
λ + C 1 s α1 + C 2 s α2




p̃k−1 (s) =

λ
λ + C 1 s α1 + C 2 s α2

(t), k ≥ 0 :

k
p̃0 (s)

(3.6)

10

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

=

λk (C1 sα1 −1 + C2 sα2 −1 )
λk (C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 )
=
, k = 0, 1, 2...
(λ + C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 )k+1
s(λ + C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 )k+1

On the other hand, one can compute the Laplace transform from the stochastic representation
(3.1). If
Z ∞ −λx
e
(α1 ,α2 )
(3.7)
pk
(t) = P{N (Yα1 ,α2 (t)) = k} =
(λx)k fα1 ,α2 (t, x)dx,
k!
0
where fα1 ,α2 (t, x) is given by (1.13), then using (1.11),(1.12) we have for k ≥ 0, s > 0
∞

Z
p̃k (s) =
0

(α ,α )
e−st pk 1 2 (t)dt

∞

Z
=
0

λk φ(s)
=
k! s

Z

∞

h
e−λx
(λx)k
k!

∞

Z

i
e−st fα1 ,α2 (t, x)dt dx

0

e−λx xk e−xφ(s) dx

0

Note that
∂k
∂λk

Z

∞

−λx −xφ(s)

e

e

k

Z

∞

dx = (−1)

e−λx xk e−xφ(s) dx

0

0

∂k
k!
1
=
= (−1)k
;
k
∂λ λ + φ(s)
(λ + φ(s))k+1
thus
p̃k (s) = λk

φ(s)
λk (C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 )
=
,
s(λ + φ(s))k+1
s(λ + C1 sα1 + C2 sα2 )k+1

the same expression as (3.6). We can formulate the result in the following form:
Theorem 3.1. The MFPP N α1 ,α2 defined in (3.1) is the stochastic solution of the system of
fractional differential-difference equations (3.2) with initial conditions (3.3).
Note that in [5] one can find some other stochastic representations of the MFPP (3.1). Also, some
(α ,α )
(α ,α )
analytical expression for p0 1 2 (t) is given by (3.5), while the analytical expression for pk 1 2 (t),for
k ≥ 1, are given by (3.7).
(α ,α )
Moreover, pk 1 2 (t),for k ≥ 1, can be obtained by the following recurrent relation:
(α ,α )
pk 1 2 (t)

Zt
=

(α ,α2 )

1
pk−1

(t − z)g(z)dz,

0

where

Z

∞

g̃(s) =
0

e−sz g(z)dz =

λ
λ + C1

sα1

+ C 2 s α2

,

and from (3.4):
∞


λ α2 −1 X  C1 α2 −α1 r r+1
λ α2 
z
z
z
g(z) =
−
Eα2 ,α2 +(α2 −α1 )r −
.
C2
C2
C2
r=0

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

11

3.3. Dependence. From [28, Theorem 2.1] and (1.10), we have the following expressions for
moments in form of the function
1 α2
t Eα2 −α1 ,α2 +1 (−C1 tα2 −α1 /C2 ),
C2
EN α1 ,α2 (t) = λU (t),
1
VarN α1 ,α2 (t) = λ2 2 t2α2 [2Eα2 −α1 ,α1 +α2 +1 (−C1 tα2 −α1 /C2 )
C2
U (t) =

− (Eα2 −α1 ,α2 +1 (−C1 tα2 −α1 /C2 ))2 ]
1
+ λ tα2 Eα2 −α1 ,α2 +1 (−C1 tα2 −α1 /C2 ),
C2
n Z min(t,s) 
Cov(N α1 ,α2 (t), N α1 ,α2 (s)) = λU (min(t, s)) + λ2
U (t − τ )
0

o
+ U (s − τ ) dU (τ ) − U (t)U (s) .
We extend the Watanabe characterization for MFPP. Let Λ(t) : R+ → R+ be a non-negative
right-continuous non-decreasing deterministic function such that Λ(0) = 0, Λ(∞) = ∞, and
Λ(t) − Λ(t−) ≤ 1 for any t. Such a function will be called consistent. The Mixed-Fractional Nonhomogeneous Poisson process (MFNPP) is defined as
NΛα1 ,α2 = {NΛα1 ,α2 (t), t ≥ 0} = {N (Λ(Yα1 ,α2 (t))), t ≥ 0},
where the homogeneous Poisson process N with intensity λ = 1, and the inverse subordinator
Yα1 ,α2 given by (1.9) are independent.
Theorem 3.2. Let X = {X(t), t ≥ 0} be a simple locally finite point process. X is a MFNPP
iff there exist a consistent function Λ(t), and a mixed stable subordinator {Lα1 ,α2 (t), t ≥ 0}, 0 <
α1 < 1, 0 < α2 < 1, defined in (1.8), such that
M = {M (t), t ≥ 0} = {X(t) − Λ(Yα1 ,α2 (t)), t ≥ 0}
is a martingale with respect to the induced filtration Ft = σ(X(s), s ≤ t) ∨ σ(Yα1 ,α2 (s), s ≥ 0),
where Yα1 ,α2 (t) = inf{s : Lα1 ,α2 (t) ≥ t} is the inverse mixed stable subordinator. In addition, for
any T > 0,
{M (τ ), τ stopping time s.t. Λ(Yα1 ,α2 (τ )) ≤ T }
is uniformly integrable.
Proof. The proof is analogue to that of Theorem 2.2.
4. Two-Parameter Fractional Poisson Processes and Martingales.
4.1. Homogeneous Poisson random fields. This section collects some known results from the
theory of two-parameter Poisson processes and homogeneous Poisson random fields (PRF) (see,
e.g., [47, 37], among the others).

Let (Ω, F, P ) be a complete probability space and let Ft1 ,t2 ; (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ be a family of subσ-fields of F such that
(i) Fs1 ,s2 ⊆ Ft1 ,t2 for any s1 ≤ t1 , s2 ≤ t2 ;
(ii) F0,0 contains all null sets of F;

12

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

(iii) for each z ∈ R2+ , Fz =

\

Fz 0 where z = (s1 , s2 ) ≺ z 0 = (t1 , t2 ) denotes the partial order on

z≺z 0

R2+ , which means that s1 ≤ t1 , s2 ≤ t2 .
Given (s1 , s2 ) ≺ (t1 , t2 ) we denote by
∆s1 ,s2 X(t1 , t2 ) = X(t1 , t2 ) − X(t1 , s2 ) − X(s1 , t2 ) + X(s1 , s2 )
the increments of the random field X(t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ over the rectangle ((s1 , s2 ) , (t1 , t2 )]. In
addition, we denote
F∞,t2 = σ(Ft1 ,t2 , t1 > 0), Ft1 ,∞ = σ(Ft1 ,t2 , t2 > 0), and Fs∗1 ,s2 = F∞,s2 ∨ Fs1 ,∞ = σ(Fs1 ,∞ , F∞,s2 ).
A strong martingale is an integrable two-parameter process X such that
E(∆s1 ,s2 X(t1 , t2 )|F∞,s2 ∨ Fs1 ,∞ ) = 0,
for any z = (s1 , s2 ) ≺ z 0 = (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ .
conditions (i), (ii), (iii) for all
Let {Ft1 ,t2 } be a family of sub-σ-fields of F satisfying the previous

2
(t1 , t2 ) ∈ R+ . A Ft1 ,t2 − PRF is an adapted, cadlag field N = N (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ , such that,
(1) N (t1 , 0) = N (0, t2 ) = 0 a.s.
(2) for all (s1 , s2 ) ≺ (t1 , t2 ) the increments ∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 ) are independent of F∞,s2 ∨ Fs1 ,∞ , and
has a Poisson law with parameter λ (t1 − s1 ) (t2 − s2 ), that is,
e−λ|S| (λ |S|)k
P {∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 ) = k} =
,
k!

λ > 0,

k = 0, 1, . . . ,

where S = ((s1 , s2 ) , (t1 , t2 )], λ > 0, and |S| is the Lebesgue measure of S.
If we do not specify the filtration, {Ft1 ,t2 } will be the filtration generated by the field itself,
completed with the nulls sets of F N = σ N (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ .
It is known that then there is a simple locally finite point random measure N (·), such that for
any finite n = 1, 2, . . . , and for any disjoint bounded Borel sets A1 , ..., An
P (N (A1 ) = k1 , ..., N (An ) = kn )


n
 X

λk1 +...+kn
=
λ |Aj | ,
(|A1 |)k1 · · · (|An |)kn exp −


k1 ! · .. · kn !

kj = 0, 1, 2, ...,

j=1

while
EN (A) = λ |A| , Cov(N (A1 ), N (A2 )) = λ |A1 ∩ A2 | .
Theorem 4.1 (Two Parameter Watanabe Theorem [19]). A random simple locally finite counting measure N is a two-parameter PRF iff N (t1 , t2 ) − λt1 t2 is a strong martingale.
(1)

(2)

4.2. Fractional Poisson random fields. Let Yα1 (t), t ≥ 0 and Yα2 (t), t ≥ 0 be two independent
inverse stable subordinators with indices α1 ∈ (0, 1) and α2 ∈ (0, 1), which are independent of
the Poisson field N (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ . In [26], the Fractional Poisson field (FPRF) is defined as
follows
Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = N (Yα(1)
(t1 ), Yα(2)
(t2 )), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ .
(4.1)
1
2
We obtain the marginal distribution of FPRF: for k = 0, 1, 2, . . .,
pαk 1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = P (Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = k)

13

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES
∞Z ∞

Z
=
0

0

e−λx1 x2 (λx1 x2 )k
fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 ,
k!

(4.2)

where fa (t, x) is given by (1.3). In other words, for (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ , k = 0, 1, . . .
Z ∞Z ∞
− α1
− α1
k−1− α1 k−1− α1
t1 t2 λk
1
2
P (Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = k) =
e−λx1 x2 x1
x2
gα1 (t1 x1 1 )gα2 (t2 x2 2 )dx1 dx2 ,
α1 α2 k! 0
0
Z ∞Z ∞
k+ α1 k+ α1
λk
x1
x2
=
e−λx1 x2 x1 1 x2 2 W−α1 ,0 (− α1 )W−α2 ,0 (− α2 )dx1 dx2 ,
k!t1 t2 0
t1
t2
0
(4.3)
where the Wright generalized Bessel function is defined by (1.2), and gα (x) is defined by (1.1).
Using the Laplace transform given by (1.4) one can obtain an exact expression for the double
Laplace transform of (4.2): for k = 0, 1, 2, . . .,
Z ∞Z ∞
e−s1 t1 −s2 t2 pk (t1 , t2 )dt1 dt2
L{pk (t1 , t2 ); s1 , s2 } =
0
0
Z ∞ Z ∞ −λx1 x2
e
(λx1 x2 )k α1 −1 α2 −1
=
s1
s2
exp{−x1 sα1 1 − x2 sα2 2 }dx1 dx2 . (4.4)
k!
0
0
Note that


ENα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = E E[N (Yα1 (t1 ), Yα2 (t2 ))|Yα1 (t1 ), Yα2 (t2 )]
Z ∞Z ∞
=
EN (u1 , u2 )fα1 (t1 , u1 )fα2 (t2 , u2 )du1 du2
0

0

= λtα1 1 tα2 2 /[Γ(1 + α1 )Γ(1 + α2 )]

(4.5)

and, for (t1 , t2 ), (s1 , s2 ) ∈ R2+ ,
Cov(Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ), Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , s2 ))
= λ2

Z min(t1 ,s1 )
(s1 t1 )α1 i
1
(t1 − τ1 )α1 + (s1 − τ1 )α1 )τ1α1 −1 dτ1 − 2
Γ(1 + α1 )Γ(α1 ) 0
Γ (1 + α1 )
Z min(t2 ,s2 )
h
(s2 t2 )α2 i
1
(t2 − τ2 )α2 + (s2 − τ2 )α2 )τ2α2 −1 dτ2 − 2
×
Γ(1 + α2 )Γ(α2 ) 0
Γ (1 + α2 )
Z min(t2 ,s2 )
α1 h
(t1 s1 )
1
+ 2
((t2 − τ2 )α2 + (s2 − τ2 )α2 ) τ2α2 −1 dτ2 −
Γ (1 + α1 ) Γ(1 + α2 )Γ(α2 ) 0
Z min(t1 ,s1 )
(t2 s2 )α1 h
1
((t1 − τ1 )α1 + (s1 − τ1 )α1 ) τ1α1 −1 dτ1 −
+ 2
Γ (1 + α2 ) Γ(1 + α1 )Γ(α1 ) 0
(min(t1 , s1 ))α1 (min(t2 , s2 ))α2
+λ
;
Γ(1 + α1 )Γ(1 + α2 )

nh

(s2 t2 )α2 i
Γ2 (1 + α2 )
(s t )α1 io

(4.6)

1 1

Γ2 (1 + α1 )

in particular, for (t1 , t2 ), (s1 , s2 ) ∈ R2+ ,
VarNα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = λ2 t1 2α1 t2 2α2 C1 (α1 , α2 ) + λt1 α1 t2 α2 C2 (α1 , α2 )},
where
C1 (α1 , α2 ) =
C2 (α1 , α2 ) =

1
1
−
;
2
2
α1 α2 Γ(2α1 )Γ(2α2 ) (α1 α2 ) Γ (α1 )Γ2 (α2 )
1
.
Γ(1 + α1 )Γ(1 + α2 )

We can summarize our results in the following

(4.7)

14

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

Proposition 4.1.

Let Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ , be a FPRF defined by (4.1). Then

i) P (Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = k) , k = 0, 1, 2... is given by (4.3);
ii) ENα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ), VarNα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) and Cov(Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ), Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , s2 )) are given by (4.5), (4.7),
(4.6), respectively.
The proof is given in [30], see also Appendix for more details and more general results hold for
any Lévy random fields.
Remark. Following the ideas of this paper, the Hurst index of the Fractional Poisson random
field in d = 2 can be defined as follows:


VarNα1 ,α2 (T, T )
α1 + α2
H = inf β : lim sup
<∞ =
∈ (0, 1).
2dβ
2
T
T →∞
Remark.

Any random field
Z(t1 , t2 ) = N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 )),

(t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+

defined on the positive quadrant R2+ can be extended in the whole space R2 in the following way: let
Zj (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ , j = 1, 2, 3, 4 be independent copies of the random field Z(t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈
R2+ .
Then one can define


Z1 (t1 , t2 ),
t1 ≥ 0, t2 ≥ 0



−Z (−t− , t ),
t1 < 0, t2 ≥ 0
2
1 2
Z̄(t1 , t2 ) =
−

t1 ≥ 0, t2 < 0
−Z3 (t1 , −t2 ),



 Z (−t− , −t− ), t < 0, t < 0
1
2
4
2
1
Therefore, modifying the cadlag property we obtain a Poisson like random field Z̄(t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈
R2 which has a similar covariance structure (replacing t1 , t2 , s1 , s2 by |t1 |, |t2 |, |s1 |, |s2 |).
4.3. Characterization on increasing paths. Let Lα = {Lα (t), t ≥ 0}, be an α-stable subordinator, and Yα = {Yα (t), t ≥ 0} be its inverse (α ∈ (0, 1)). Recall that Lα (t) is a cadlag strictly
increasing process, while Yα (t) is nondecreasing and continuous. As a consequence, the latter defines a random nonnegative measure µα on (R+ , BR+ ) such that µα ([0, t]) = Yα (t). The σ-algebra
G contains all the information given by µα :
G := σ(Lα (t), t ≥ 0) = σ(Yα (t), t ≥ 0) = σ(µα (B), B ∈ BR+ ).
Now, let X(t) = N (Yα (t)) be a FPP, where N has intensity λ. We denote by {FtX , t ∈ R+ }
its natural filtration. We note that each µα ([0, t]) is G-measurable, while N (w) − N (µα ([0, s])) is
independent of σ(FsX , G) for any w ≥ µα ([0, s]). Hence, for any bounded FsX -measurable random
variable Y (s), we have


Z ∞

Z ∞
E
Y (s)1(s,t] (v) dXv = E Y (s)E
1(s,t] (v) N (µα (dv)) σ(FsX , G)
0
Z ∞0


= E Y (s)
1(µα ([0,s]),µα ([0,t])] (w) E(dNw |σ(FsX , G))
0


= E Y (s)λµα ((s, t])

15

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

Z
=E

∞

0


Y (s)1(s,t] (v) λµα (dv) .

In other words, by [10, Theorem T4], the FPP X is a doubly stochastic Poisson process with respect
to the filtration {σ(FtX , G), t ∈ R+ }. Therefore a first characterization of a FPP may be written in
the following way.
Corollary 4.1. A process Nα is a FPP iff it is a doubly stochastic Poisson process with
intensity λYα , with respect to the filtration {σ(FtX , G), t ∈ R+ }. In other words, whenever B1 , . . . , Bn
are disjoint bounded Borel sets and x1 , . . . , xn are non-negative integers, then
n
n
\
 Y
exp(−λµα (Bi ))(λµα (Bi ))xi
P
{Nα (Bi ) = xi } G =
.
xi !
i=1

i=1

(1)

(2)

An analogous result may be found for FPRF. In fact, let Yα1 (t), t ≥ 0 and Yα2 (t), t ≥ 0 be two
independent inverse stable subordinators with indices α1 ∈ (0, 1) and α2 ∈ (0, 1). Let µα1 and µα2 ,
G1 and G2 their respective σ-algebras (this notation will be used in the following results).
If µα = µα1 ⊗ µα2 is the product measure and G = σ(G1 , G2 ), we can follow the same reasoning as
X ∨F X ) are conditionally
above once we have noted that ∆µα1 ([0,s1 ]),µα2 ([0,s2 ]) N (w1 , w2 ) and σ(F∞,s
s1 ,∞
2
independent, given G. In fact


X
X
E ∆s1 ,s2 X(t1 , t2 ) σ(F∞,s
∨
F
,
G)
s
,∞
2
1


X
X
= E ∆µα1 ([0,s1 ]),µα2 ([0,s2 ]) N (µα1 ([0, t1 ]), µα2 ([0, t2 ])) σ(F∞,s
∨
F
,
G)
s1 ,∞
2


(4.8)
= E ∆µα1 ([0,s1 ]),µα2 ([0,s2 ]) N (µα1 ([0, t1 ]), µα2 ([0, t2 ])) G
= λµα (((s1 , s2 ), (t1 , t2 )]).
In other words, the FPRF X is a F ∗ -doubly stochastic Poisson process (see [37] for the definition
of F ∗ -doubly stochastic Poisson process) with respect to the filtration {σ(FtX1 ,t2 , G)), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ }
by [37, Theorem 1]. Again, we may summarize this result in the following statement.
Proposition 4.2. A process Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff it is a F ∗ -doubly stochastic Poisson process
with intensity λYα1 · Yα2 , with respect to the filtration {σ(FtX1 ,t2 , G)), t1 , t2 ∈ R+ }. In other words,
whenever B1 , . . . , Bn are disjoint bounded Borel sets in R+ × R+ and x1 , . . . , xn are non-negative
integers, then
n
n
\
 Y
exp(−λµα (Bi ))(λµα (Bi ))xi
P
{Nα1 ,α2 (Bi ) = xi } G =
.
xi !
i=1

(4.9)

i=1

Now, let t1 > 0 be fixed. The process t 7→ Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t) is the trace of the FPRF along the
increasing t-indexed family of sets t 7→ [(0, 0), (t1 , t)]. As a consequence of the previous results, we
obtain:
Theorem 4.2. A random simple locally finite counting measure Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff G1 , G2
are independent, and fixed t1 , t2 ≥ 0, the process Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t), conditioned on G1 , is a FPP Nα2 (t),
the process Nα1 ,α2 (t, t2 ), conditioned on G2 , is a FPP Nα1 (t), and the two processes Nα1 (t1 + t) −
Nα1 (t1 ), Nα2 (t2 + t) − Nα2 (t2 ) are conditionally independent given σ(G, σ(Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , s2 ), (s1 , s2 ) ≺
(t1 , t2 ))).

16

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

Proof. Assume that Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF and t1 > 0 fixed. Denote by Xt = Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t) and
note that σ({Yα2 (t), t ≥ 0}) = G2 . Let B1 , . . . , Bn be disjoint bounded Borel sets and x1 , . . . , xn
non-negative integers. We have
n

\
P
{Nα1 ,α2 ([0, t1 ] × Bi ) = xi } σ(G1 , σ({Yα2 (t), t ≥ 0}))
i=1
n

\
=P
{Nα1 ,α2 ([0, t1 ] × Bi ) = xi } G
i=1

=
=

n
Y
exp(−λµα ([0, t1 ] × Bi ))(λµα ([0, t1 ] × Bi ))xi
i=1
n
Y
i=1

xi !
exp(−λYα1 (t1 ) · µα2 (Bi ))(λYα1 (t1 ) · µα2 (Bi ))xi
,
xi !

and hence Xt = M (Yα2 (t)), where, conditioned on G1 , M is a Poisson process with intensity
λYα1 (t1 ). The conditional independence follows by similar arguments, and hence the first implication
is proved.
Conversely, by [37], to prove Proposition 4.2 it is sufficient to prove (4.8). Denote by
Hs11 ,s2 = σ(Nα1 ,α2 (s1 + t, s) − Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , s), t ≥ 0, s ≤ s2 )
Hs21 ,s2 = σ(Nα1 ,α2 (s, s2 + t) − Nα1 ,α2 (s, s2 ), t ≥ 0, s ≤ s1 ),
Nα

Nα

,α

Nα

,α

Nα

,α

,α

1 2
so that F∞,s12 2 = σ(Fs1 ,s12 2 , Hs11 ,s2 ) and Fs1 ,∞
= σ(Fs1 ,s12 2 , Hs21 ,s2 ). Then, denoting by X ⊥⊥
Y |W the conditional independence of X and Y , given W , we have by hypothesis that

Nα

Hs11 ,s2 ⊥⊥ Hs21 ,s2 |σ(G, Fs1 ,s12

,α2

),

Nα

Hs11 ,s2 ⊥⊥ Fs1 ,s12

,α2

|G,

Nα

Hs21 ,s2 ⊥⊥ Fs1 ,s12

,α2

|G,

for any (s1 , s2 ). Thus,
Nα

• Ht21 ,t2 ⊥⊥ Ft1 ,t12

,α2

Nα

, Ht11 ,t2 |G,, Ft1 ,t12

,α2

⊥
⊥ Ht11 ,t2 |G,, Ht11 ,s2 ⊆ Ht11 ,t2 , Hs21 ,t2 ⊆ Ht21 ,t2 , then





Nα ,α
Nα1 ,α2
Nα ,α
Nα ,α
E Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(F∞,s12 2 ∨ Fs1 ,∞
, G) = E Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(Ft1 ,s12 2 ∨ Fs1 ,t12 2 , G) ,
and hence




Nα ,α
Nα1 ,α2
Nα ,α
Nα ,α
E ∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(F∞,s12 2 ∨Fs1 ,∞
, G) = E ∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(Ft1 ,s12 2 ∨Fs1 ,t12 2 , G) ;
(4.10)
Nα ,α
Nα ,α
• note that Ft1 ,s12 2 = σ(Fs1 ,s12 2 , H), where H = σ(∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (u, v), s1 ≤ u ≤ t1 , v ≤ s2 ). In
Nα

,α2

addition, Hs11 ,t2 ⊥
⊥ Fs1 ,t12

|G, and σ(∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ), H) ⊆ Hs11 ,t2 . Hence





Nα ,α
Nα ,α
E ∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(Ft1 ,s12 2 ∨ Fs1 ,t12 2 , G) = E ∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(H, G) ; (4.11)
• now, note that both Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) − Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , s2 ) and Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , t2 ) − Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , s2 ) belong
Nα ,α
to Ht21 ,s2 , while H ⊆ Ft1 ,s12 2 . Hence


E ∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(H, G) = E(∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 )|G).

(4.12)

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

17

Combining (4.10), (4.11) and (4.12) we finally get (4.8):


Nα ,α
Nα1 ,α2
, G) = E(∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 )|G)
E ∆s1 ,s2 Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) σ(F∞,s12 2 ∨ Fs1 ,∞
= λ(Yα1 (t1 ) − Yα1 (s1 ))(Yα2 (t2 ) − Yα2 (s2 )).

Let A be the collection of the closed rectangles {At1 ,t2 : t ∈ R2+ }, where At1 ,t2 = {(s1 , s2 ) ∈ R2+ :
e
0 ≤ si ≤ ti , i = 1, 2}. The family A generates a topology of closed sets A(u),
which is closed under
finite unions and arbitrary intersections, called a lower set family (see, e.g., [1, 22]). In other words,
e
when a point (t1 , t2 ) belongs to a set A ∈ A(u),
all the rectangle At1 ,t2 is contained in A:
e
A ∈ A(u)

⇐⇒

At1 ,t2 ⊆ A, ∀(t1 , t2 ) ∈ A.

e
A function Γ : R+ → A(u)
is called an increasing set if Γ(0) = {(0, 0)}, it is continuous, it is
non-decreasing (s ≤ t =⇒ Γ(s) ⊆ Γ(t)), and the area it underlies is finite for any t and goes to
infinity when t increases (limt→+∞ |Γ(t)| = ∞). Note that, for a nonnegative measure µ on BR+ ×R+ ,
it is well-defined the non-decreasing right-continuous function:
(µ ◦ Γ)(t) = µ(Γ(t)).
Accordingly, given an increasing path Γ and a random nonnegative measure N (in [22], it is an
increasing and additive process), we may define the one-parameter process N ◦ Γ as the trace of N
along Γ:
(N ◦ Γ)(t) = N ({Γ(t)}), t ≥ 0.
Theorem 4.2 shows an example of characterizations of FPRF. In [18], the authors proved a
characterization of the inhomogeneous Poisson processes on the plane thorough its realizations on
increasing families of points (called increasing path) and increasing families of sets, called increasing
set (see also [2, 21]).
We are going to characterize an FPRF in the same spirit.
Theorem 4.3. A random simple locally finite counting measure Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff, conditioned on G, N ◦ Γ is a one-parameter inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity λ(µα ◦ Γ), for
any increasing set Γ, independent of G.
Proof. Assume that Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF. Then, for any 0 ≤ s1 < t1 ≤ s2 < t2 ≤ · · · ≤ sn < tn ,
the sets Bi = Γ(ti ) \ Γ(si ) are disjoint. By (4.9),
P

n
\

n

\

{(N ◦ Γ)(si , ti ] = xi } G = P
{Nα1 ,α2 (Bi ) = xi } G

i=1

i=1

=
=

n
Y
exp(−λµα (Bi ))(λµα (Bi ))xi
i=1
n
Y
i=1

xi !

x
exp − λ · (µα ◦ Γ)(si , ti ] λ · (µα ◦ Γ)(si , ti ] i
.
xi !

Conversely, note that that (4.9) may be checked only on disjoint rectangles B1 , B2 , . . . , Bn (see
also [22]). After ordering partially the rectangles with respect to ≺, one can build an increasing

18

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

sets Γ such that Bi = Γ(ti ) \ Γ(si ), where 0 ≤ s1 < t1 ≤ s2 < t2 ≤ · · · ≤ sn < tn . By hypothesis,
N ◦ Γ is an inhomogeneous Poisson process with intensity µα ◦ Γ. Then,
n
n

\

\
{(N ◦ Γ)(si , ti ] = xi } G
P
{Nα1 ,α2 (Bi ) = xi } G = P
i=1

i=1


x
n
Y
exp − λ · (µα ◦ Γ)(si , ti ] λ · (µα ◦ Γ)(si , ti ] i
=
xi !
i=1

=

n
Y
exp(−λµα (Bi ))(λµα (Bi ))xi
i=1

xi !

.

Now, a function Γ : R+ → R2+ is called an increasing path if Γ(0) = (0, 0), it is continuous, it is
non-decreasing (s ≤ t =⇒ Γ1 (s) ≤ Γ1 (t), Γ2 (s) ≤ Γ2 (t)), and the area it underlies goes to infinity
(limt→+∞ Γ1 (t)Γ2 (t) = ∞). In other words, an increasing path is an increasing set where, for each
t, Γ(t) is a rectangle. Given an increasing path Γ and a process N (t1 , t2 ), the one-parameter process
N ◦ Γ is the trace of N along Γ:
(N ◦ Γ)(t) = ∆0,0 N (Γ1 (t), Γ2 (t)) = N (Γ1 (t), Γ2 (t)),

t ≥ 0.

When dealing with the laws of the traces of a process along increasing paths, one cannot hope
to prove, for instance, the conditional independence of two filtrations as Hs11 ,s2 and Hs21 ,s2 , since
the event that belong to those filtrations are generated by the increments of the process on regions
that are not comparable with respect to the partial order ≺.
As an example, there is no increasing path that separates the three rectangles B1 = {(1, 0) ≺
z ≺ (2, 1)}, B2 = {(0, 1) ≺ z ≺ (1, 2)} and B3 = {(1, 1) ≺ z ≺ (2, 2)} and hence we cannot give
the joint law of ∆(1,0) N (2, 1) and ∆(0,1) N (1, 2). On the other hand, Proposition 4.2 suggests that,
if we assume the independence of N (B1 ) and N (B2 ) conditioned on F1,1 , the equation (4.9) may
be proved for B1 , B2 and B3 via increasing paths (as in [2, 3, 18, 21]). This consideration has
suggested the following definition.
We say that the filtration satisfies the conditional independence condition or the Cairoli-Walsh
condition ((F4) in [13], see also [24]) if for any F-measurable integrable random variable Z, and for
any (t1 , t2 ) :
E(E(Z|Ft1 ,∞ )|F∞,t2 ) = E(E(Z|F∞,t2 )|Ft1 ,∞ ) = E(Z|Ft1 ,t2 ).
Thus, following the same ideas as in [2, 3, 18, 21], one can prove the following result.
Theorem 4.4. A random simple locally finite counting measure Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff, conditioned on G, the Cairoli-Walsh condition holds and N ◦ Γ is an inhomogeneous Poisson process with
intensity Yα1 (Γ1 (t)) · Yα2 (Γ2 (t)), for any increasing path Γ.
A remark on Set-Indexed Fractional Poisson Process. Let T be a metric space equipped with
a Radon measure on its Borel sets. We assume existence of an indexing collection A on T , as it is
defined in [22]. We are interested to considering processes indexed by a class of closed sets from T .
In this new framework, Γ : R+ → A is called an increasing path if it is continuous and increasing:
s < t =⇒ Γ(s) ⊆ Γ(t) (called a flow in [17])
We can now define Set-Indexed Fractional Poisson process.
A set-indexed process X = {XU , U ∈ A} is called a Set-Indexed Fractional Poisson process(SIFPP), if for any increasing path Γ the process X Γ = {XΓ(t) , t ≥ 0} is an FPP.

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

Remark.

19

Following results of [22], we can state that any SIFPP is a set-indexed Lévy process.

Details and martingale characterizations will be presented elsewhere.
4.4. Gergely-Yezhow characterization. Let (Un , n ≥ 1) be a sequence of i.i.d. (0, 1)-uniform
distributed random variables, independent of the processes Yαi , i = 1, 2. The random indexes
associated to the ‘records’ (νn , n ≥ 1) are inductively defined by
ν1 (ω) = 1,

νn+1 (ω) = inf{k > νn (ω) : Uk (ω) > Uνn (ω) (ω)}.

It is well known (see, e.g., [4, p.63-78]) that P (∩n {νn < ∞}) = 1, and hence the k-th record Vk of
the sequence is well defined: V0 := 0, Vk = Uνk . Since Vn ≥ max(U1 , . . . , Un ), then P (Vn → 1) = 1.
Moreover, the number of Un ’s that realize the maximum by time n is almost surely asymptotic to
log(n) as n → ∞. In other words, the sequence (νn )n growths exponentially fast.
Now, given a increasing set Γ, we define
X
n1[Vn ,Vn+1 ) (1 − exp(−µα ◦ Γ(t))) = sup{n : Vn ≤ 1 − exp(−µα ◦ Γ(t))}.
YtΓ =
n

Theorem 4.5. A random simple locally finite counting measure Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff N ◦ Γ is
distributed as Y Γ , for any increasing set Γ.
Proof. In the proof we assume that limt µα ◦ Γ(t) = ∞ almost surely. When this is not the
case, the proof should be changed as in [15], where generalized random variables are introduced
exactly when 1 − exp(−“intensity at ∞”) < 1.
By Theorem 4.3, we must prove that, conditioned on G, Y Γ is an inhomogeneous Poisson process
with intensity µα ◦ Γ. Conditioned on G, let F (t) := 1 − exp(−µα ◦ Γ(t)) be the continuous deterministic cumulative distribution function. Let F − be its pseudo-inverse F − (x) = inf{y : F (y) > x},
and define ξn = F − (Un ), for each n. Then (ξn , n ≥ 1) is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables
with cumulative function F . As in [15], put ζn0 = max(ξ1 , . . . , ξn ), (n = 1, 2, . . .) omitting in the
increasing sequence
ζ10 , ζ20 , . . . , ζn0 , . . .
all the repeating elements except one, we come to the strictly increasing sequence [15, Eq. (3)]
ζ1 , ζ2 , . . . , ζn , . . .
Now, since F − is monotone, it is obvious by definition that ζn = F − (Vn ). Again, F − is monotone,
and hence
X
YtΓ =
n1[F − (Vn ),F − (Vn+1 )) (F − (1 − exp(−µα ◦ Γ(t))))
n

=

X

n1[ζn ,ζn+1 ) (t),

n

that is the process v(t) defined in [15, Eq. (7’)]. The thesis is now an application of [15, Theorem
1] and Theorem 4.3.

20

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

4.5. Random time change. The process µα may be used to reparametrize the time of the increasing paths and sets. In fact, for any increasing path Γ = (Γ1 (t), Γ2 (t)), let
(
6 ∅;
inf{t : Yα1 (Γ1 (t)) · Yα2 (Γ2 (t))(ω) > s} if {t : Yα1 (Γ1 (t)) · Yα2 (Γ2 (t))(ω) > s} =
T (s, ω) =
∞
otherwise;
be the first time that the intensity is seen to be bigger than s on the increasing path, and define
Γµα (s, ω) = Γ(T (s, ω))

(4.13)

the reparametrization of Γ made by µα . Analogously, for any increasing set Γ, let
Γµα (s, ω) = Γ(inf{t : (µα (ω) ◦ Γ)(t) > s}).
e
We note that, for any fixed s and A ∈ A(u)


{ω : A * Γµα (s)} = ∪t∈Q {A * Γ(t)} ∩ {µα (Γ(t) ∩ A) ≥ s} ∈ GA ,

(4.14)

e
where GA = σ(µα (A0 ), A0 ⊆ A). We recall that a random measurable set Z : Ω → A(u)
is called a
GA -stopping set if {A ⊆ Z} ∈ GA for any A. As a consequence, the reparametrization given in (4.13)
transforms Γ(·) into Γµα (·), a family of continuous increasing stopping set by (4.14). Such a family
is called an optional increasing set. The random time change theorem (which can be made an easy
consequence of the characterization of the Poisson process given in [51]) together with Theorem 4.3
and Theorem 4.4 give the following corollaries, that can be seen as extensions of some results in
[2, 3].
Corollary 4.2. A random simple locally finite counting measure Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff, conditioned on G, N ◦ Γµα is a standard Poisson process, for any increasing set Γ.
Corollary 4.3. A random simple locally finite counting measure Nα1 ,α2 is a FPRF iff, conditioned on G, the Cairoli-Walsh condition holds [13, 24] and N ◦ Γµα is a standard Poisson process,
for any increasing path Γ.
5. Fractional Differential Equations. A direct calculation may be applied to show that the
marginal distribution of the classical Poisson random field N (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+
pck (t1 , t2 ) = P (N (t1 , t2 ) = k) =

e−λt1 t2 (λt1 t2 )k
, k = 0, 1, 2 . . .
k!

satisfy the following differential-difference equations:

∂ 2 pc0 (t1 , t2 )
(5.1)
= −λ + λ2 t1 t2 pc0 (t1 , t2 ) ;
∂t1 ∂t2

∂ 2 pc1 (t1 , t2 )
= −3λ + λ2 t1 t2 pc1 (t1 , t2 ) + λpc0 (t1 , t2 ) ;
(5.2)
∂t1 ∂t2


∂ 2 pck (t1 , t2 )
= −λ + λ2 t1 t2 pck (t1 , t2 ) + λ − 2λ2 t1 t2 pck−1 (t1 , t2 ) + λ2 pck−2 (t1 , t2 ) ; k ≥ 2; (5.3)
∂t1 ∂t2
and the initial conditions:
pc0 (0, 0) = 1, pck (0, 0) = pck (t1 , 0) = pck (0, t2 ) = 0, k ≥ 1.

21

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

We are now ready to derive the governing equations of the marginal distributions of FPRF
Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ :
pαk 1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = P (Nα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) = k) , k = 0, 1, 2, . . .

(5.4)

given by (4.2) or (4.3). These equations have something in common with the governing equations
for the non-homogeneous Fractional Poisson processes [27].
For a function u(t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ , the Caputo-Djrbashian mixed fractional derivative of order
α1 , α2 ∈ (0, 1) × (0, 1) is defined by
Dαt11,t,α2 2 u(t1 , t2 )

t1

t2

∂ 2 u (τ1 , τ2 )
dτ1 dτ2
∂τ1 ∂τ2 (t1 − τ1 )α1 (t2 − τ2 )α2
0
0
Z t1 Z t2 2
1
∂ u (t1 − υ1 , t2 − υ2 ) dυ1 dυ2
.
=
Γ (1 − α1 ) Γ (1 − α2 ) 0 0
∂υ1 ∂υ2
υ1α1 υ2α2

1
=
Γ (1 − α1 ) Γ (1 − α2 )

Z

Z

Assuming that
e−s1 t1 −s2 t2

∂ 2 u (t1 − υ1 , t2 − υ2 ) −α1 −α2
υ1 υ2
∂υ1 ∂υ2

is integrable as function of four variables t1 , t2 ,υ1 , υ2 , the double Laplace transform of the the
Caputo-Djrbashian mixed fractional derivative
L



Dαt11,t,α2 2 u(t1 , t2 ); s1 , s2
=

Z

∞Z ∞

=

0
α1 α2
s1 s2 ũ(s1 , s2 )

0

e−s1 t1 −s2 t2 Dαt11,t,α2 2 u(t1 , t2 )dt1 dt2

− sα1 1 −1 sα2 2 ũ(s1 , 0) − sα1 1 sα2 2 −1 ũ(0, s2 ) − sα1 1 −1 sα2 2 −1 ũ(0, 0), (5.5)

where ũ(s1 , s2 ) = L {u(t1 , t2 ); s1 , s2 } is the double Laplace transform of the function u(t1 , t2 ).
Remark. Note that the Laplace transform of fα (t, x) given by (1.4) as α = 1 is of the form
e−sx and its inverse is the delta distribution δ(t − x). Accordingly, as α → 1, fα (t, x) converges
weakly to δ(t − x), and we denote it by fα (t, x) → δ(t − x).
The proof of (5.5) is standard and we omit it (see [35, p. 37] for the one-dimensional case).
Theorem 5.1. Let N (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ , α1 , α2 ∈ (0, 1) × (0, 1) , be the FPRF defined by
(4.1).
1) Then its marginal distribution given in (5.4) satisfy the following fractional differentialintegral recurrent equations:
Z ∞Z ∞

α1 ,α2 α1 ,α2
Dt1 ,t2 p0
(t1 , t2 ) =
−λ + λ2 x1 x2 pα0 1 ,α2 (x1 , x2 ) fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 ; (5.6)
Z0 ∞ Z0 ∞


α1 ,α2 α1 ,α2
Dt1 ,t2 p1
(t1 , t2 ) =
−3λ + λ2 x1 x2 pα1 1 ,α2 (x1 , x2 )
0
0

+ λpα0 1 ,α2 (x1 , x2 ) fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 ;
(5.7)
Z ∞Z ∞h

Dαt11,t,α2 2 pαk 1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) =
−λ + λ2 x1 x2 pαk 1 ,α2 (x1 , x2 )
0
0
i
 1 ,α2
1 ,α2
+ λ − 2λ2 x1 x2 pαk−1
(x1 , x2 ) + λ2 x1 xpαk−2
(x1 , x2 )
× fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 ,

k ≥ 2;

(5.8)

22

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

with the initial conditions:
pα0 1 ,α2 (0, 0) = 1, pαk 1 ,α2 (0, 0) = pαk 1 ,α2 (t1 , 0) = pαk 1 ,α2 (0, t2 ) = 0, k ≥ 1.
2) For α1 → 1, α2 → 1, fα1 (t1 , x1 ) → δ(t1 − x1 ), fα2 (t2 , x2 ) → δ(t2 − x2 ), hence (5.6), (5.7) and
(5.8) become (5.1), (5.2) and (5.3) correspondingly.
Proof. 1) The initial conditions are easily checked using the fact that Yα1 (0) = Yα2 (0) = 0 a.s.
Let pαk 1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 ) , k = 0, 1, 2, . . ., be defined as in equations (4.2) or (4.3). Then the characteristic
function of the FPRF, for z ∈ R:
Z ∞Z ∞
iz
eλx1 x2 (e −1) fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 . (5.9)
p̂(t1 , t2 ; z) = E exp {izNα1 ,α2 (t1 , t2 )} =
0

0

Taking the double Laplace transform of (5.9) and using (1.4) and (4.4) yields
Z ∞Z ∞
e
e−s1 t1 −s2 t2 p̂(t1 , t2 ; z)dt1 dt2
p̄(s1 , s2 ; z) = p̂(t1 , t2 ; z) =
0
0
Z ∞
Z ∞
α1
α2
iz
α1 −1 α2 −1
= s1
s2
eλx1 x2 (e −1) e−x1 s1 −x2 s2 dx1 dx2 ,
0

(5.10)

0

and
p̄ (0, 0, z) = p̄ (0, s2 , z) = p̄ (s1 , 0, z) = 0.
Using an integration by parts for a double integral [29]:
Z ∞Z ∞
Z ∞Z ∞
F (x1 , x2 )H (dx1 , dx2 ) =
H ([x1 , ∞) × [x2 , ∞)) F (dx1 , dx2 )
0
0
0
0
Z ∞
+
H ([x1 , ∞) × [0, ∞)) F (dx1 , 0)
Z0 ∞
+
H ([0, ∞) × [x2 , ∞)) F (0, dx2 ) + F (0, 0)H ([0, ∞) × [0, ∞)) ,
0

we get from (5.5), (5.10) and (5.10) with

F (x1 , x2 ) = exp λx1 x2 (eiz − 1) , H (dx1 , dx2 ) = exp {−sα1 1 x1 − sα2 2 x2 } dx1 dx2 ,
h Z ∞ Z ∞ ∂ 2 exp ix x (eiz − 1)
1 2
α1 −1 α2 −1
p̄(s1 , s2 ; z) = s1
s2
∂x
1 ∂x2
0
0
α1
exp {−s1 x1 − sα2 2 x2 }
p̂(0, 0, z) i
×
dx
,
dx
+
.
1
2
sα1 1 sα2 2
sα1 1 sα2 2
Thus
sα1 1 sα2 2 p̄(s1 , s2 ; z) − p̂(0, 0, z)
=

sα1 1 −1 sα2 2 −1

Z
0

∞Z ∞
0


∂ 2 exp ix1 x2 (eiz − 1)
exp {−sα1 1 x1 − sα2 2 x2 } dx1 , dx2
∂x1 ∂x2

Using (5.5), (1.4) we can invert the double Laplace transform as follows:

Z ∞Z ∞ 2
∂ exp ix1 x2 (eiz − 1)
α1 ,α2
Dt1 ,t2 p̂ (t1 , t2 , z) =
fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 .
∂x1 ∂x2
0
0

23

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES
4
0.6

2

0.4

2

0.2
0

3

1

3

0.5

1

1
0

5

10

0

0

5

0

10

0

5

10

0

10

10

10

10

5

5

5

5

0

0

5

10

0

0

5

0

10

0

5

(a) α1 = 0.95, α2 = 0.5, λ = 100

10

0

0

5

10

0

5

10

0

5

10

0

5

10

(b) α1 = α2 = 0.75, λ = 100

3

0.15

0.15

1

2

0.1

0.1

0.5

1

0.05

0.05

1.5

0

0

5

10

0

0

5

0

10

0

5

10

0

10

10

10

10

5

5

5

5

0

0

5

10

0

0

5

0

10

0

5

10

0

(d) α1 = α2 ∼ 1, λ = 10000

(c) α1 = 0.9, α2 = 0.75, λ = 100
(1)

(2)

Fig 1. Simulations of the inverse stable subordinators Yα1 (t) and Yα2 (t) and the corresponding FPRF Nα1 ,α2 for
(2)
(1)
different values of α1 and α2 . Top-left: simulation of Yα1 (t), top-right: simulation of Yα2 (t), bottom-(left-right):
simulation of Nα1 ,α2 , the rotation shows the connection with marginal intensity

And finally, by inverting the characteristic function (5.9), we obtain

Z ∞Z ∞
∂2
α1 ,α2
α1 ,α2
c
Dt1 ,t2 p̂ (t1 , t2 , z) pk
(t1 , t2 ) =
p (x1 , x2 ) fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 .
∂x1 ∂x2 k
0
0
Using (5.1), (5.2) and (5.3) we arrive to (5.6), (5.7) and (5.8) correspondingly.
αj

2) Finally, as αj → 1, j = 1, 2 we have e−sj xj → e−sj xj , j = 1, 2, and their Laplace inversions are
delta function: δ(tj − xj ), j = 1, 2. Thus, 2) is proven.
6. Simulations. In this section we show some simulations of FPRF made with Matlab based
on the α-stable random number generator function stblrnd. For a relevant work on statistical
parameter estimation of FPP in connection with simulations, see also [12].
The subordinators Lα are simulated exactly at times tn = n∆, where ∆ = 0.0005 till they reach
a defined value Send . More precisely,
Lα (0) = 0;

Lα (tn ) = Lα (tn−1 ) + X,

n = 1, 2, . . . , N

24

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

√
where X is independently simulated with stblrnd(α, 1, α ∆ , 0). Accordingly,
√
α
Ee−sX = exp{−(s ∆)α } = exp{−∆sα },
s ≥ 0,
and hence
Ee−sLα (tn ) = exp{−tn sα },

s ≥ 0, n = 0, 1, . . . , N.

The simulation of the inverse stable subordinators Yα (s), s ∈ [0, Tend ] are thus made at times
sn = Lα (tn ), n = 1, . . . , N with values Yα (sn ) = n∆.
To simulate a FPRF Nα1 ,α2 (s1 , s2 ) on the window (0, Send ) × (0, Send ), we first simulate two
(1)
(2)
independent inverse stable subordinators Yα1 (s1n ), n = 1, . . . , N1 and Yα2 (s2n ), n = 1, . . . , N2 .
1
1
By Proposition 4.2, the value of Nα1 ,α2 on each rectangle (sn , sn+1 ) × (s1n , s1n+1 ) is a Poisson
random variable with mean ∆2 . As ∆2  1, we approximate it with a Bernoulli random variable
Y of parameter ∆2 . When Y = 1, we add a point at random inside the rectangle.
(2)
(1)
In Figure 1 the simulations of the inverse stable subordinators Yα1 (t) and Yα2 (t) and the
corresponding FPRF Nα1 ,α2 for different values of α1 and α2 are shown. The simulations of Nα1 ,α2
are plotted twice: we have rotated each figure in order to underline the spatial dependence of the
(1)
spread of the points of the process Nα1 ,α2 in connection with the marginal intensities Yα1 (t) and
(2)
Yα2 (t). For example, in Figure 1(c) two different marginal distribution are expected since α1 = 0.9
(1)
(2)
and α2 = 0.75. While Y0.9 (t) produces a quite uniform distribution of points, Y0.75 (t) generates
clusters in correspondence of its steeper slopes.
We also compute the quantity
Z ∞ Z ∞ −λx1 x2
e
(λx1 x2 )k
P (N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 )) = k) =
fα1 (t1 , x1 )fα2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 ,
k!
0
0
given in (4.2), for different values of t1 , t2 , α1 and α2 . In fact, with a Monte Carlo procedure, we
approximate the above quantity with
N
N
1 X X e−λx1 x2 (λx1 x2 )k
1Xn1 (x1 )1Yn2 (x2 )
N2
k!
n1 =1 n2 =1

where (Xn , n = 1, . . . , N ) and (Yn , n = 1, . . . , N ) are independent sequences of i.i.d. distributed as
(1)
(2)
Yα1 (t1 ) and Yα2 (t2 ), respectively. Summing up, the integral in (4.2) is computed numerically, and
the simulations with N = 1500 are presented in Figure 2. We underline the variety of the shape of
distributions that can be generated with this two-parameter model in addition to its flexibility to
include, for example, different cluster phenomena.
Acknowledgement. N. Leonenko and E. Merzbach wish to thank G. Aletti for two visits to University
of Milan

APPENDIX A: COVARIANCE STRUCTURE OF PARAMETER-CHANGED POISSON
RANDOM FIELDS
In this Appendix, we prove a general result that can be used to compute the covariance structure
of the parameter-changed Poisson random field:
Z (t1 , t2 ) = N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 )), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ ,

25

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

300

200
150

200

300

150

200

100

100

50

100
100
0

50
0

5

10

0

0

2

4

6

0

0.06

0.15

0.04

0.1

0.02

0.05

0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

70

0

0.2

0

(a) t1 = t2 = 5, α1 = 0.5, α2 = .75

0.4

5

0.6

0

0

10

15

2

4

20

25

(b) t1 = t2 = 5, α1 = 0.95, α2 = .075

150

150

300

100

100

200

50

50

100

200
150
100

0

0

2

4

0

0

2

4

0.04

0

50
0

1

2

10

20

3

0

0

2

4

6

0.06

0.03

0.04

0.02
0.02

0.01
0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

(c) t1 = t2 = 5, α1 = α2 = 0.75
(1)

0

0

30

40

50

60

70

(d) t1 = 3, t2 = 7, α1 = α2 = 0.75
(2)

Fig 2. Simulations of the distribution of Yα1 (t1 ), Yα2 (t2 ) and the corresponding pk (t1 , t2 ) = P (N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 )) = k)
for λ = 10 and different values of t1 , t2 , α1 and α2 .

26

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

where Y1 = {Y1 (t1 ), t1 ≥ 0} and Y2 = {Y2 (t2 ), t2 ≥ 0} are independent non-negative non-decreasing
stochastic processes, in general non-Markovian with non-stationary and non-independent increments, and N = {N (t1 , t2 ), (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ } is a PRF with intensity λ > 0. We also assume that Y1
and Y2 are independent of N.
For example, Y1 and Y2 might be inverse subordinators.
Theorem A.1. Suppose that N is a PRF, Y1 and Y2 are two non-decreasing non-negative
independent stochastic processes which are also independent of N. Then
1) if EY1 (t1 ) = U1 (t1 ) and EY2 (t2 ) = U2 (t2 ) exist, then EZ(t1 , t2 ) exists and
EZ(t1 , t2 ) = EN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 );
2) if Y1 and Y2 have second moments, so does Z and
n
o
VarZ(t1 , t2 ) = [EN (1, 1)]2 EY12 (t1 )EY22 (t2 ) − (EY1 (t1 ))2 (EY2 (t2 ))2
+VarN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 )
and its covariance function
Cov(Z(t1 , t2 ), Z(s1 , s2 )) = Cov (N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 )), N (Y1 (s1 ), Y2 (s2 )))
for s1 < t1 , s2 < t2 is given by:
n
(EN (1, 1))2 Cov (Y1 (t1 ), Y1 (s1 )) Cov (Y2 (t2 ), Y2 (s2 ))
+ EY2 (t2 )EY2 (s2 )Cov (Y1 (t1 ), Y1 (s1 )) + EY1 (t1 )EY1 (s1 )Cov (Y2 (t2 ), Y2 (s2 ))

o

+ VarN (1, 1)EY1 (s1 )EY2 (s2 ) (A.1)
and for any (s1 , s2 ), and (t1 , t2 ) from R2+
n
(EN (1, 1))2 Cov (Y1 (t1 ), Y1 (s1 )) Cov (Y2 (t2 ), Y2 (s2 ))
+ EY2 (t2 )EY2 (s2 )Cov (Y1 (t1 ), Y1 (s1 )) + EY1 (t1 )EY1 (s1 )Cov (Y2 (t2 ), Y2 (s2 ))

o

+ VarN (1, 1)EY1 (min(s1 , t1 ))EY2 (min(s2 , t2 )) (A.2)
Remark. These formulae are valid for any Lévy random field N = {N (t1 , t2 ),(t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2+ },
with finite expectation EN (1, 1) and finite variance VarN (1, 1), for PRF EN (1, 1) = λ; VarN (1, 1) =
λ and to apply these formulae one needs to know
(2)

(2)

U1 (t1 ) = EY1 (t), U2 (t2 ) = EY2 (t), U1 (t1 ) = EY12 (t), U2 (t1 ) = EY22 (t),
and Cov (Y1 (t1 ), Y1 (s1 )) , Cov (Y2 (t2 ), Y2 (s2 )) which are available for many non-negative processes
Y1 (t) and Y2 (t) induction inverse subordinators.
Remark. One can compute the following expression for the one-dimensional distribution of
the parameter-changed PRF:
P (N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 )) = k) = pk (t1 , t2 )

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES
∞Z ∞

Z
=
0

where
fi (ti , xi ) =

0

e−λx1 x2 (λx1 x2 )k
f1 (t1 , x1 )f2 (t2 , x2 )dx1 dx2 , k = 0, 1, 2, . . .
k!

d (i)
d
P {Yi (ti ) ≤ xi } =
G (xi ),
dxi
dxi ti

i = 1, 2.

and its Laplace transform:
∞Z ∞

Z
L {pk (t1 , t2 ); s1 , s2 } =
0

0

e−λx1 x2 (λx1 x2 )k
L {f1 (t1 , x1 ); s1 } L {f2 (t2 , x2 ); s2 } dx1 dx2 ,
k!

where

Z
L {fi (ti , xi ); si } =

∞

e−si ti fi (ti , xi )dti ,

i = 1, 2.

0

Proof of Theorem A.1. We denote
(1)

Gt1 (u1 ) = P {Y1 (t1 ) ≤ u1 } ,

(2)

Gt2 (u2 ) = P {Y2 (t2 ) ≤ u2 } .

We know that for a PRF
E∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 ) = EN (1, 1) (t1 − s1 ) (t2 − s2 ) = Var∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 );
E (∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 ))2 = EN (1, 1) (t1 − s1 ) (t2 − s2 ) + [EN (1, 1) (t1 − s1 ) (t2 − s2 )]2 .
To prove 1) we use simple conditioning arguments:
Z ∞Z ∞
(1)
(2)
EZ(t1 , t2 ) =
u v EN (1, 1)Gt1 (du)Gt2 (dv) = EN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 ).
0

0

Let us prove 2).
For the variance, we have
VarZ(t1 , t2 ) = E (N (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 ))2 − (EN (Y1 (t1 ), Y2 (t2 ))2
Z ∞Z ∞
 (1)
(2)
=
(EN (u1 , u2 ))2 + VarN (u1 , u2 ) Gt1 (du1 )Gt2 (du2 )
0

0

− (EN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 ))2
Z ∞Z ∞h
i
(1)
(2)
=
(EN (1, 1))2 u21 u22 + VarN (1, 1)u1 u2 Gt1 (du1 )Gt2 (du2 )
0

27

0

− (EN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 ))2
= (EN (1, 1))2 EY12 (t1 )EY22 (t2 ) + VarN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 )
− (EN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 ))2

= (EN (1, 1))2 EY12 (t1 )EY22 (t2 ) − (EY1 (t1 ))2 (EY2 (t2 ))2
+VarN (1, 1)EY1 (t1 )EY2 (t2 ).
To compute the covariance structure, first we consider the case when s1 < t1 , s2 < t2 . Then
EN (s1 , s2 )N (t1 , t2 )

n
= E N (s1 , s2 ) N (t1 , t2 ) − N (t1 , s2 ) − N (s1 , t2 ) + N (s1 , s2 )

28

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

o
+ N (t1 , s2 ) + N (s1 , t2 ) − N (s1 , s2 )
= E∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 )EN (s1 , s2 ) + EN (t1 , s2 )N (s1 , s2 ) + EN (s1 , t2 )N (s1 , s2 ) − EN 2 (s1 , s2 ).
Using the facts that
E∆s1 ,s2 N (t1 , t2 )EN (s1 , s2 ) = (t1 − s1 )(t2 − s2 ) [EN (1, 1)]2 s1 s2 ,
EN (t1 , s2 )N (s1 , s2 ) = E{N (t1 , s2 ) − N (s1 , s2 ) + N (s1 , s2 )}N (s1 , s2 )
= E∆s1 ,0 N (t1 , s2 )EN (s1 , s2 ) + EN 2 (s1 , s2 )
= [EN (1, 1)]2 (t1 − s1 )s1 s22 + EN 2 (s1 , s2 ),
it is easy to obtain
EN (s1 , s2 )N (t1 , t2 ) = [EN (1, 1)]2 t1 t2 s1 s2 + s1 s2 VarN (1, 1).
Since the processes N, Y1 , Y2 are independent, a conditioning argument yields (A.1) and (A.2). In
a similar way, one can consider the case s1 > t1 , s2 < t2 .
Proof of Proposition 4.1. It follows from Theorem A.1 and Proposition 1.1.
REFERENCES
[1] Aletti, G. (2001). On different topologies for set-indexing collections. Statist. Probab. Lett. 54 67–73.
MR1857872 (2002f:60064)
[2] Aletti, G. and Capasso, V. (1999). Characterization of spatial Poisson along optional increasing paths—a
problem of dimension’s reduction. Statist. Probab. Lett. 43 343–347. MR1707943 (2000d:60084)
[3] Aletti, G. and Capasso, V. (2002). Reduction of dimension for spatial point processes and right continuous
martingales. Characterization of spatial Poisson processes. Stoch. Stoch. Rep. 72 1–9. MR1896435 (2003e:60101)
[4] Andel, J. (2001). Mathematics of Chance. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley.
[5] Beghin, L. (2012). Random-time processes governed by differential equations of fractional distributed order.
Chaos Solitons Fractals 45 1314–1327. MR2990245
[6] Beghin, L. and Orsingher, E. (2009). Fractional Poisson processes and related planar random motions. Electron. J. Probab. 14 1790–1827. MR2535014 (2010m:60168)
[7] Beghin, L. and Orsingher, E. (2010). Poisson-type processes governed by fractional and higher-order recursive
differential equations. Electron. J. Probab. 15 684–709. MR2650778 (2011f:60168)
[8] Bingham, N. H. (1971). Limit theorems for occupation times of Markov processes. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie
und Verw. Gebiete 17 1–22. MR0281255 (43 ##6974)
[9] Bowsher, C. G. and Swain, P. S. (2012). Identifying sources of variation and the flow of information in
biochemical networks. PNAS 109 E1320-E1328.
[10] Brémaud, P. (1981). Point Processes and Queues. Springer-Verlag, New York-Berlin. MR636252 (82m:60058)
[11] Busani, O. (2016). Aging uncoupled continuous time random walk limits. Electron. J. Probab. 21 paper no. 7,
17 pp.
[12] Cahoy, D. O., Uchaikin, V. V. and Woyczynski, W. A. (2010). Parameter estimation for fractional Poisson
processes. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 140 3106 - 3120.
[13] Cairoli, R. and Walsh, J. B. (1975). Stochastic integrals in the plane. Acta Math. 134 111–183. MR0420845
(54 ##8857)
[14] Daley, D. J. (1999). The Hurst index of long-range dependent renewal processes. Ann. Probab. 27 2035–2041.
MR1742900 (2000k:60175)
[15] Gergely, T. and Yezhow, I. I. (1973). On a construction of ordinary Poisson processes and their modelling.
Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verw. Gebiete 27 215–232. MR0359012 (50 ##11467)
[16] Haubold, H. J., Mathai, A. M. and Saxena, R. K. (2011). Mittag-Leffler functions and their applications.
J. Appl. Math. Art. ID 298628, 51. MR2800586 (2012e:33061)

FRACTIONAL POISSON FIELDS AND MARTINGALES

29

[17] Herbin, E. and Merzbach, E. (2013). The set-indexed Lévy process: stationarity, Markov and sample paths
properties. Stochastic Process. Appl. 123 1638–1670. MR3027894
[18] Ivanoff, B. G. and Merzbach, E. (1990). Characterization of compensators for point processes on the plane.
Stochastics Stochastics Rep. 29 395–405.
[19] Ivanoff, B. G. and Merzbach, E. (1994). A martingale characterization of the set-indexed Poisson process.
Stochastics Stochastics Rep. 51 69–82. MR1380763 (97c:60125)
[20] Ivanoff, B. G. and Merzbach, E. (2006). What is a multi-parameter renewal process? Stochastics 78 411–441.
MR2281679 (2008h:60354)
[21] Ivanoff, B. G., Merzbach, E. and Plante, M. (2007). A compensator characterization of point processes on
topological lattices. Electron. J. Probab. 12 47–74. MR2280258 (2008h:60187)
[22] Ivanoff, G. and Merzbach, E. (2000). Set-Indexed Martingales. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability 85. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL. MR1733295 (2001g:60105)
[23] Kallenberg, O. (2002). Foundations of modern probability, second ed. Probability and its Applications (New
York). Springer-Verlag, New York. MR1876169
[24] Krengel, U. and Sucheston, L. (1981). Stopping rules and tactics for processes indexed by a directed set. J.
Multivariate Anal. 11 199–229. MR618785
[25] Laskin, N. (2003). Fractional Poisson process. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation
8 201-213.
[26] Leonenko, N. and Merzbach, E. (2015). Fractional Poisson fields. Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. 17 155–
168. MR3306677
[27] Leonenko, N., Scalas, E. and Trinh, M. (2017). The fractional non-homogeneous Poisson process. Statist.
Probab. Lett. 120 147–156. MR3567934
[28] Leonenko, N. N., Meerschaert, M. M., Schilling, R. L. and Sikorskii, A. (2014). Correlation structure
of time-changed Lévy processes. Commun. Appl. Ind. Math. 6 e-483, 22 pp. MR3277310
[29] Leonenko, N. N., Meerschaert, M. M. and Sikorskii, A. (2013). Fractional Pearson diffusions. J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 403 532–546. MR3037487
[30] Leonenko, N. N., Ruiz-Medina, M. D. and Taqqu, M. S. (2011). Fractional elliptic, hyperbolic and parabolic
random fields. Electron. J. Probab. 16 1134–1172. MR2820073 (2012m:60112)
[31] Magdziarz, M. (2010). Path properties of subdiffusion—a martingale approach. Stoch. Models 26 256–271.
MR2739351
[32] Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R. and Scalas, E. (2004). A fractional generalization of the Poisson processes.
Vietnam J. Math. 32 53–64. MR2120631
[33] Mainardi, F., Gorenflo, R. and Vivoli, A. (2005). Renewal processes of Mittag-Leffler and Wright type.
Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 8 7–38. MR2179226
[34] Meerschaert, M. M., Nane, E. and Vellaisamy, P. (2011). The fractional Poisson process and the inverse
stable subordinator. Electron. J. Probab. 16 1600–1620. MR2835248 (2012k:60252)
[35] Meerschaert, M. M. and Scheffler, H.-P. (2008). Triangular array limits for continuous time random walks.
Stochastic Process. Appl. 118 1606–1633. MR2442372 (2010b:60135)
[36] Meerschaert, M. M. and Sikorskii, A. (2012). Stochastic Models for Fractional Calculus. de Gruyter Studies
in Mathematics 43. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. MR2884383
[37] Merzbach, E. and Nualart, D. (1986). A characterization of the spatial Poisson process and changing time.
Ann. Probab. 14 1380–1390. MR866358 (88d:60145)
[38] Merzbach, E. and Shaki, Y. Y. (2008). Characterizations of multiparameter Cox and Poisson processes by
the renewal property. Statist. Probab. Lett. 78 637–642. MR2409527 (2009d:60151)
[39] Mijena, J. B. (2014). Correlation structure of time-changed fractional Brownian motion arXiv:1408.4502.
[40] Nane, E. and Ni, Y. (2017). Stability of the solution of stochastic differential equation driven by time-changed
Lévy noise. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 145 3085–3104. MR3637955
[41] Piryatinska, A., Saichev, A. I. and Woyczynski, W. A. (2005). Models of anomalous diffusion: The subdiffusive case. Physica A 349 375-420.
[42] Podlubny, I. (1999). Fractional Differential Equations. Mathematics in Science and Engineering 198. Academic
Press, Inc., San Diego, CA. MR1658022 (99m:26009)
[43] Polito, F. and Scalas, E. (2016). A generalization of the space-fractional Poisson process and its connection
to some Lvy processes. Electron. Commun. Probab. 21 14 pp.
[44] Repin, O. N. and Saichev, A. I. (2000). Fractional Poisson law. Radiophys. and Quantum Electronics 43
738–741. MR1910034

30

G. ALETTI, N. LEONENKO, E. MERZBACH

[45] Ross, S. (2011). A first course in probability, Eight ed. Macmillan Co., New York; Collier Macmillan Ltd.,
London.
[46] Scalas, E., Gorenflo, R. and Mainardi, F. (2004). Uncoupled continuous-time random walks: Solution and
limiting behavior of the master equation. Physical Review E 69.
[47] Stoyan, D., Kendall, W. S. and Mecke, J. (1987). Stochastic Geometry and its Applications. Wiley Series in
Probability and Mathematical Statistics: Applied Probability and Statistics. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester
With a foreword by D. G. Kendall. MR895588 (88j:60034a)
[48] Uchaikin, V. V. and Zolotarev, V. M. (1999). Chance and stability. Modern Probability and Statistics.
VSP, Utrecht Stable distributions and their applications, With a foreword by V. Yu. Korolev and Zolotarev.
MR1745764
[49] Veillette, M. and Taqqu, M. S. (2010). Numerical computation of first passage times of increasing Lévy
processes. Methodol. Comput. Appl. Probab. 12 695–729. MR2726540 (2012f:60150)
[50] Veillette, M. and Taqqu, M. S. (2010). Using differential equations to obtain joint moments of first-passage
times of increasing Lévy processes. Statist. Probab. Lett. 80 697–705. MR2595149 (2011c:60129)
[51] Watanabe, S. (1964). On discontinuous additive functionals and Lévy measures of a Markov process. Japan.
J. Math. 34 53–70. MR0185675 (32 ##3137)
E-mail: giacomo.aletti@unimi.it

E-mail: LeonenkoN@Cardiff.ac.uk
E-mail: ely.merzbach@biu.ac.il

