INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY: STOCHASTIC FIXED POINT
EQUATION AND ARMA MODELS

arXiv:1801.00149v1 [math.PR] 30 Dec 2017

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

d

Abstract. We study solutions to the stochastic fixed point equation X = AX + B
when the coefficients are nonnegative and B is an “inverse exponential decay” (IED)
random variable. We provide theorems on the left tail of X which complement wellknown tail results of Kesten and Goldie. We generalize our results to ARMA processes
with nonnegative coefficients whose noise terms are from the IED class. We describe
the lower envelope for these ARMA processes.

1. Introduction
The paper is devoted to studying properties, especially left tails, of positive random
variables that arise in several closely related contexts—stochastic fixed point equations,
ARMA models, and iterated random functions.
For a two-dimensional random vector (A, B), an independent random variable X is
said to satisfy the stochastic fixed point equation if
(1.1)

d

X = AX + B.

The behavior of the solution, especially the left and right tails, has been extensively
studied. A classical result ([8, 6]) says that under some assumptions on (A, B), for
some α, C− , C+ > 0,
(1.2)

P(X > x) ∼ C+ x−α

and P(X < −x) ∼ C− x−α ,

as x → ∞. (See the precise statement in Theorem 6.13. Here and elsewhere ∼ means
that the ratio of the two quantities converges to 1.) An excellent review of the subject
can be found in a recent book [3].
It can be shown that if A and B are nonnegative random variables then the solution X
to (1.1) is also a nonnegative random variable. Under this extra assumption on (A, B),
the first estimate in (1.2) is still meaningful and informative. But the second one is
not because for x > 0 we have P(X < −x) = 0. It is natural to ask for a meaningful
estimate for the left tail under these circumstances. We will examine the behavior of
P(X < x) as x → 0+ . This question does not seem to be addressed anywhere in the
literature; in particular, it does not seem to be examined in [3].
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 60G10, 62M10, 37M10, 60J05.
Key words and phrases. Tail estimates, inverse-gamma distribution, stochastic fixed point equation,
iterated random sequences, ARMA models, time series.
1

2

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

The motivation for the present paper comes from a project on a “Fleming-Viot” type
process defined in [4]. We will explain in Section 7 how the problem arises in the setting
of [1].
1.1. Review of the main results. This paper revolves around nonnegative random
variables X with the property that
(1.3)

lim x log P(X < x) = −λ ≤ 0.

x→0+

The best known distributions with this property are known as “inverse-gamma” (see
Definition 2.1). This is why we call random variables satisfying (1.3) inverse exponential
decay random variables or IED-random variables with parameter λ.
In Section 3 (see especially Theorems 3.4 and 3.6), we will find conditions for a
sequence
P∞(Xi ) of independent IED-random variables with parameters (λi ) so that the
series i=1 αi Xi is an IED-random variable with the parameter
!2
∞ p
X
αi λi .
i=1

Consider an ARMA series of the form
Xn =

p
X

φi Xn−i + Bn +

i=1

q
X

θj Bn−j

j=1

with positive coefficients φi and θj and initial value 0. Assume that (Bi ) are i.i.d. IEDrandom variables. We will give conditions (see Theorem 5.3) so that Xn converge to an
IED-random variable and
lim inf log nXn = Λ > 0 a.s.,
n→∞

where Λ is a function of the coefficients of the recursion and the parameter of the
IED-random variable B1 .
In the last part of this paper we will study the stochastic fixed point equation
d

X = AX + B,
where B is an IED-random variable. We will first examine the left tail behavior for
the related iterated stochastic sequence Xn+1 = An+1 Xn + Bn+1 (see Theorem 6.4).
We finish the review with the following theorem combining our new results with some
classical results (we will include the same theorem in the body of the paper as Corollary
6.6).
Let log+ a denote max(0, log a) for a > 0.
Theorem 1.1. Suppose that the vector (A, B) satisfies the following conditions.
(i) A and B are nonnegative independent random variables.
(ii) E[log A] < 0.
(iii) B is an IED-random variable with the parameter λ and E[log+ B] < ∞.

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

3

Then the stochastic fixed point equation
d

X = AX + B
has a unique solution with the property
(1.4)

lim x log P(X < x) = − 

x→0+

λ
2 .
p
1 − ess inf(A)

If A and B are not independent, we prove by example that (1.4) need not be satisfied
(see Section 7).
1.2. Organization of the paper. In Section 2, we introduce IED random variables
and we prove that this class is closed under addition of finitely many independent summands. Section 3 is devoted to infinite series of independent IED random variables—we
show that the sum may or may not be IED. In Section 4, we discuss the autoregressive equation, i.e., the fixed point equation with the multiplicative coefficient that is
a constant. In Section 5 we expand our results to ARMA models with positive coefficients and the noise from the IED class. In Section 6, we give estimates for left tails
of solutions to the fixed point equation when the coefficients are independent random
variables. In Section 7 we show that if the coefficients are not independent then these
results no longer hold and the analysis is more demanding.
2. Inverse exponential decay
The definition of random variables with inverse exponential decay of the left tail is
inspired, in part, by inverse gamma distributions. These are used in Bayesian statistics
(see [7]). One way to define inverse gamma distributions is by saying that the reciprocal
of a random variable with a gamma distribution has the inverse gamma distribution.
A more direct definition follows.
Definition 2.1. For a positive random variable X we say it has the inverse gamma
distribution with parameters α, β > 0 if its density function has the form
β α −α−1 −β/x
f (x) =
x
e
,
Γ(α)
for x ∈ (0, ∞).
Definition 2.2. We say that a nonnegative random variable X has an inverse exponential decay of the left tail with parameter λ ≥ 0 if
lim x log P(X < x) = −λ.

(2.1)

x→0+

We will call such a random variable IED or IED(λ).
Lemma 2.3. For any non-negative random variable X,
(2.2)

lim x log P(X < x) = lim+ x log P(X ≤ x),

x→0+

x→0

in the sense that if one of the limits exists then the other one exists as well and they
are equal.

4

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Proof. For x > 0, we have x log P(X < x) ≤ x log P(X ≤ x). Therefore
lim sup x log P(X < x) ≤ lim inf x log P(X ≤ x).

(2.3)

x→0+

x→0+

Assume that the limit limx→0+ x log P(X < x) = −λ exists. Then for ε > 0,
x(1 + ε) log P(X ≤ x) ≤ x(1 + ε) log P(X < x(1 + ε)).
This implies that
lim sup x log P(X ≤ x) ≤ lim sup
x→0+

x→0+

λ
1
(x(1 + ε) log P(X < x(1 + ε))) ≤ −
.
1+ε
1+ε

+

Letting ε → 0 and combining the resulting inequality with (2.3) yields (2.2).
In the case when limx→0+ x log P(X ≤ x) exists, a similar argument, based on (2.3)
and the observation that for ε ∈ (0, 1),
x(1 − ε) log P(X ≤ x(1 − ε)) ≤ x(1 − ε) log P(X < x),
proves (2.2).



Example 2.4. We will show that the limit in (2.1) might not exist. It is easy to see
that there exists a c.d.f. F with the property that


3k+1
3k+3
F 2−(3k+1) = e−2
and F 2−(3k+2) = e−2
for k = 1, 2, . . . The crucial observation is that the function F restricted to the indicated
points is increasing. If X is a random variable with c.d.f. F then

lim 2−(3k+1) log P X ≤ 2−(3k+1) = −1,
k→∞


1
lim 2−(3k+2) log P X ≤ 2−(3k+2) = − .
k→∞
2
This and Lemma 2.3 imply that the limit in (2.1) does not exist.
Lemma 2.5. If X has inverse gamma distribution with parameters α, β > 0, then X
is an IED(β)-random variable.
Proof. Consider any ε ∈ (0, 1). If f (x) denotes the density of a random variable X with
the inverse gamma distribution with parameters α, β > 0 then


Z x
Z x
β α −β/t −α−1
βα
β
P(X < x) =
f (t)dt ≥
e
t
dt ≥
exp −
x−α−1 ·εx.
Γ(α)
(1 − ε)x
0
(1−ε)x Γ(α)
β
This implies that lim inf x→0+ x log P(X < x) ≥ − 1−ε
, for all ε ∈ (0, 1). Hence,
lim inf x→0+ x log P(X < x) ≥ −β.
On the other hand,
Z x
Z x α
Z x α
β
β
−β/t −α−1
P(X < x) =
f (t)dt =
e
t
dt =
e−β(1−ε)/t e−βε/t t−α−1 dt
Γ(α)
Γ(α)
0
0
Z x 0 α
Z ∞ α
βε
β
β
−β(1−ε)/x
−βε/t −α−1
−β(1−ε)/x
≤e
e
t
dt ≤ e
e− t t−α−1 dt.
Γ(α)
0 Γ(α)
0

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

5

Since the last integral is finite and independent of x, we have
lim sup x log P(X < x) ≤ −β(1 − ε)
x→0+

for all ε ∈ (0, 1). Hence, lim supx→0+ x log P(X < x) ≤ −β.



Example 2.6. Note that if X is a nonnegative random variable with the property
log P(X > x)
= −λ ≤ 0,
x→∞
x
lim

then X −1 is an IED(λ)-random variable. We give two natural examples.
(a) If X has the exponential distribution with parameter λ (i.e., its mean is 1/λ), then
X −1 is an IED(λ)-random variable.
(b) If X has the normal distribution with mean µ and variance σ 2 then X −2 is an
IED((2σ 2 )−1 )-random variable.
The following alternative characterization of IED-random variables will prove to be
useful.
Lemma 2.7. (a) Random variable X is an IED(λ)-random variable if and only if for
every δ > 0 there exist cδ > 0 and Cδ > 0 such that for all x > 0,
(2.4)

cδ e−(λ+δ)/x ≤ P(X < x) ≤ Cδ e−λ(1−δ)/x .

(b) Random variable X is an IED(λ)-random variable if and only if for every δ > 0
there exist cδ > 0 and Cδ > 0 such that for all x > 0,
cδ e−(λ+δ)/x ≤ P(X ≤ x) ≤ Cδ e−λ(1−δ)/x .
Proof. (a) It is easy to check that if (2.4) holds then limx→0+ x log P(X < x) = −λ.
On the other hand, if X is IED(λ) then for every δ > 0 there exists ε > 0 such that
e−(λ+δ)/x ≤ P(X < x) ≤ e−λ(1−δ)/x ,
λ(1−δ)

for x ∈ (0, ε). If we set cδ := P(X < ε) and Cδ := max{e ε , 1} then the inequalities
(2.4) hold for all x > 0.
(b) This part can be proved just like (a), with the obvious modifications based on
Lemma 2.3.

The following theorem, the springboard for the rest of the paper, says that IED
random variables form a closed class under natural operations.
Theorem 2.8. Let Xj , j = 1, . . . , n, be independent IED-random variables with parameters λj ≥ 0, j = 1, . . . , n. Then for any α1 , α2 , . . . , αn ≥ 0, the random variable
α1 X1 + α2 X2 + . . . + αn Xn is IED with the parameter
p
2
p
α1 λ1 + . . . + αn λn .
To prove the theorem, we will need the following lemma.

6

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Lemma 2.9. (i) Suppose that x, α, β > 0. The function
(2.5)

fx (y) =

α
β
+ ,
x−y y
√

√

2

√
( α+ β )
x β
√ .
√
defined for y ∈ (0, x), attains its minimum value of
at
y
=
x
α+ β
If x, α > 0 and β = 0, the claim still holds in the sense that the function in (2.5),
defined for y ∈ [0, x), attains its minimum value of α/x at y = 0.
(ii) For any α, β, ε > 0 there exist 0 < κ1 < κ2 < 1 such that for x > 0 and
y ∈ [κ1 x, κ2 x],
√ 2
√
α+ β
.
fx (y) ≤ (1 + ε)
x

Proof. The proof of part (i) is standard.
For x = 1, claim (ii) follows from the continuity of f1 (y) and part (i). To extend it
to all x > 0 without changing the values of κ1 and κ2 , note that fx (y) = (1/x)f1 (y/x).
This scaling property easily implies the claim made in part (ii).

Proof of Theorem 2.8. If X1 is an IED-random variable with the parameter λ1 , then by
Lemma 2.7,


x
−α1 (λ1 +δ)/x
cδ e
≤ P(α1 X1 < x) = P X1 <
≤ Cδ e−α1 λ1 (1−δ)/x ,
α1
for all x > 0. It follows that
−α1 (λ1 + δ) ≤ lim inf
x log P(α1 X < x) ≤ lim sup x log P(α1 X < x) ≤ −α1 λ1 (1 − δ).
+
x→0

x→0+

By letting δ → 0 we see that α1 X1 is an IED-random variable with the parameter α1 λ1 .
By the argument given above, if n = 2, it is sufficient
to show that X1 + X2 is an
√ 2
√
IED-random variable with the parameter
λ1 + λ2 . Then the general case n ≥ 2
follows by induction.
First we deal with the case λ1 + λ2 > 0 and assume without loss of generality that
λ1 > 0.
It follows from independence of X1 and X2 that
Z x
P(X1 + X2 < x) =
P(X1 < x − y)P(X2 ∈ dy).
0

In the following calculation we use (in this order) the last formula, the upper bound
in (2.4), integration by parts, the upper bound in (2.4) again, and Lemma 2.9 (i). For
any δ, ε ∈ (0, 1) and some constants Cδ1 , Cδ2 < ∞,
Z x
λ1 (1−δ)
(2.6) P(X1 + X2 < x) ≤
Cδ1 e− x−y P(X2 ∈ dy)
0


(1−δ)
Z x
P(X2 < y) exp − λ1x−y
=
Cδ1 λ1 (1 − δ)
dy
(x − y)2
0

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY
x

Z
(2.7)

Cδ1 Cδ2 λ1 (1 − δ)

≤

 
(1−δ)
exp − λ1x−y
+
(x − y)2

0
x

Z

Cδ1 Cδ2 λ1 (1 − δ)

=

λ2 (1−δ)
y

 
exp − λ1 (1−δ)(1−ε)
+
x−y

7


dy


λ2 (1−δ)
y

 

λ1 (1−δ)ε
exp −
x−y

(x − y)2

0

dy

  p
 2 
p
λ1 (1 − δ)(1 − ε) + λ2 (1 − δ) 
 
≤ Cδ1 Cδ2 λ1 (1 − δ) exp − 
 ×
x
Z

x

×

 

λ1 (1−δ)ε
exp −
x−y

dy
(x − y)2
  p
 2 
p
λ1 (1 − δ)(1 − ε) + λ2 (1 − δ) 
C 1C 2
 
= δ δ exp − 
 ×
ε
x
0

 

λ1 (1 − δ)ε
× exp −
.
x
This implies that,
lim sup x log P(X1 + X2 < x) ≤ −




2
p
p
λ1 (1 − δ)(1 − ε) + λ2 (1 − δ) + λ1 (1 − δ)ε ,

x→0+

so letting δ, ε → 0, we obtain
(2.8)

lim sup x log P(X1 + X2 < x) ≤ −

p
p 2
λ1 + λ2 .

x→0+

In the case λ1 + λ2 = 0 we have λ1 = λ2 = 0. Then (2.8) holds because x > 0 and
P(X1 + X2 < x) ≤ 1.
The following lower bound can be derived just like (2.6)-(2.7), using the lower bound
in (2.4),
 

1 +δ)
Z x
exp − (λx−y
+ (λ2y+δ)
(2.9)
P(X1 + X2 < x) ≥
c1δ c2δ (λ1 + δ)
dy.
(x − y)2
0
By Lemma 2.9 (ii), there exist 0 < κ1 < κ2 < 1, independent of x, such that for
√
√
2
( λ1 +δ+ λ2 +δ)
y ∈ I := [κ1 x, κ2 x] ⊂ (0, x) we have f (y) ≤ (1 + ε)
. Hence, it follows
x
from (2.9) that
 

Z
1 +δ
exp − λx−y
+ λ2y+δ
P(X1 + X2 < x) ≥ c1δ c2δ λ1 (λ2 + δ)
dy
(x − y)2
I
2 ! Z κ x
√
√
2
λ
+
δ
+
λ
+
δ
1
1
2
1 2
≥ cδ cδ λ1 (λ2 + δ) exp −(1 + ε)
dy
2
x
κ1 x (x − y)

8

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

√
= c1δ c2δ λ1 (λ2 + δ) exp −(1 + ε)

2 ! Z κ
√
2
λ1 + δ + λ2 + δ
1
1
dz.
x
x κ1 (1 − z)2

This implies that
lim inf x log P(X1 + X2 < x) ≥ −(1 + ε)
x→0+

2
p
p
λ1 + δ + λ2 + δ ,

so if we let ε, δ → 0, we obtain,
lim inf x log P(X1 + X2 < x) ≥ −

(2.10)

x→0+

p
p 2
λ1 + λ2 .

We conclude from (2.8) and (2.10) that X1 + X2 is an IED-random variable with the
√ 2
√
λ1 + λ2 . This completes the proof.

parameter
Corollary 2.10. Let (Xi : i = 1, . . . , n) be positive independent random variables with
the property
1
lim log P(Xi > x) = −λi < 0,
x→∞ x
for i = 1, . . . , n. Then


p
p 2

1
−1
−1 −1
lim log P X1 + . . . + Xn
λ1 + . . . + λn .
>x =−
x→∞ x
Proof. The corollary follows from Example 2.6 and Theorem 2.8.



3. Convergence of infinite IED-series
It is a natural question whether Theorem 2.8 holds for infinite series with independent
IED summands. The short answer is “no” but “yes” under extra assumptions.
Proposition 3.1. Let (Xi )i≥1 be a sequence
IED-random variables with
√ of independent
P
P √
parameters (λi )i≥1 . Let S = i≥1 Xi and Λ = i≥1 λi . Then
lim sup x log P(S < x) ≤ −Λ.

(3.1)

x→0+

Proof.
P Since Xi ’s are nonnegative random variables, for any n we have P(S < x) ≤
P ( ni=1 Xi < x). This and Theorem 2.8 imply
!
!2
n
n p
X
X
lim sup x log P(S < x) ≤ lim sup x log P
Xi < x = −
λi .
x→0+

x→0+

If we let n → ∞, the claim follows.

i=1

i=1



Example 3.2. Recall the notation and assumptions from Proposition 3.1. Two examples given below show that S does not necessarily have be an IED-random variable
with parameter Λ.

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

9

(a) Suppose that Xi ’s have inverse gamma distributions with parameters αi = 1/4
and βi = λi = 1/i4 . Then, for i ≥ 1,
Z ∞
Z
1
1 ∞ 1
−1/4−1 −1/(i4 x)
P(Xi > 1) =
x
e
dx ≥
x−1/4−1 e−1/x dx.
iΓ(1/4)
i
Γ(1/4)
1
1
Hence,
X
P(Xi > 1) = ∞.
i≥1

Therefore, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma, Xi > 1 for infinitely many i’s. Therefore,
S = ∞, a.s., regardless of the fact that
∞
∞ p
X
X
1
λi =
< ∞.
i2
i=1
i=1
(b) For some τi > 0, i ≥ 1, to be specified later, we give Xi ’s the following cumulative
distribution functions,

0
for x ≤ 0;

i x)
−1/(2
1−τ
i
Fi (x) =
e
for 0 < x < 2−i ;
e

1
for 2−i ≤ x.
Note that each Xi is
variable with P
the parameter λi = 2−i , and Xi ≤
√ an IED-random
P∞ √
−i
2 , a.s. Therefore Λ = i=1 λi < ∞ and S = ∞
i=1 Xi ≤ 1 a.s. However, we will
show that S does not have an inverse exponential decay property with the parameter
Λ. Consider an integer n ≥ 1 and let x = 2−(n+1/2) . Hence 2−(n+1) < x < 2−n . Since
each Xi is bounded by 2−i , we have
n
\

{S < x} ⊂
Xi < 2−i .
i=1
−i

Hence, using the fact that P(Xi < 2 ) = e−τi , we have
n
n
X
X
(3.2)
x log P(S < x) ≤ x
log P(Xi < 2−i ) = −x
τi .
i=1

i=1

i−1/2

If we choose τi = c2
then
n
n
X
X
x
τi = x
c2i−1/2 = 2−(n+1/2) c2−1/2 (2n+1 − 1) = c(1 − 2−n−1 ).
i=1

i=1

This and (3.2) imply that lim inf x→0+ x log P(X < x) ≤ −c. If we set −c < −Λ, then
lim inf x→0+ x log P(X < x) < −Λ.
We will give sufficient conditions for the equality in (3.1) in Theorems 3.4 and 3.6.
The main technical part of the proof is contained in the following lemma.
Lemma 3.3. Suppose that (Xi )i≥1 is a√sequence of √
independent IED-random variables
P
with parameters (λi )i≥1 . Assume that Λ := i≥1 λi < ∞. Suppose that a random
variable B satisfies the following conditions.
(i) B is an IED(1)-random variable.

10

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

(ii) B is stochastically greater than Xi /λi for each i ≥ 1, i.e., for all x ∈ R and i ≥ 1,


Xi
P(B ≤ x) ≤ P
≤x .
λi
P
P∞ λi
(iii) There exist positive real numbers (γi )i≥1 such that ∞
i=1 γi = 1,
i=1 γi < ∞, and


∞
X
γi
(3.3)
lim x
P B ≥ x = 0.
x→0+
λi
i=1
P∞
Then i=1 Xi converges to an a.s. finite random variable S satisfying
lim x log P(S < x) = −Λ.

x→0+

Proof. Since B is stochastically greater than Xi /λi , we have
P(Xi ≥ γi x) = P(Xi /λi ≥ γi x/λi ) ≤ P(B ≥ γi x/λi ).
P∞
It follows from (3.3)
P∞ that for small x > 0 we have i=1 P (B ≥ γi x/λi ) < ∞, hence,
lemma, the P
sequence
for small x > 0, i=1 P (Xi ≥ γi x) < ∞. By the Borell-Cantelli
P
∞
γ
=
1
to
see
that
(Xi ) is eventually dominated by (γi x) a.s. Recall that ∞
i
n=1 Xn
i=1
converges toP
an a.s. finite random variable S.
Let Sn = nk=1 Xk . We have
(
!) ∞
n
X
\
{S < x} ⊃ Sn < x
γk
{Xk < γk x}
k=1

k=n+1

so, by assumption (ii),
P(S < x) ≥ P Sn < x

n
X

!!
γk

k=1

(3.4)

≥ P Sn < x

n
X

∞
Y

P (Xk < γk x)

k=n+1

!!
γk

k=1

∞
Y



γk
P B< x .
λk
k=n+1

By Lemma 2.7 and assumption (i), there exists x0 > 0 such that P(B < x) ≥ e−2/x for
0 < x < x0 . Let Fn (x0 ) = {k ≥ n + 1 : x0 > γλkkx } and Gn (x0 ) = {k ≥ n + 1 : x0 ≤ γλkkx }.
Using this notation, we can break the last product in (3.4) as follows:



 Y


∞
Y
Y
γk
γk
γk
P B< x =
P B< x
P B< x
λ
λ
λk
k
k
k=n+1
k∈Fn (x0 )
k∈Gn (x0 )





X
2
λk  Y
γk

(3.5)
≥ exp −
1−P B ≥ x .
x
γk
λk
k∈Fn (x0 )

k∈Gn (x0 )



γk
x
λk



By the definition of Gn (x0 ), for all k ∈ Gn (x0 ) we have P B ≥
≤ P(B ≥ x0 ) < 1.
Standard calculus arguments show that there exists m > 1 such that −ma ≤ log(1 − a)

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

11

for 0 < a ≤ P(B < x0 ). Hence, by (3.5),



∞
Y
γk
2 X
P B < x ≥ exp −
λk
x
k=n+1
(3.6)




X
λk
γk
−m
P B≥ x 
γk
λk
k∈Fn (x0 )
k∈Gn (x0 )
!

∞
∞
X
γk
2 X λk
≥ exp −
−m
.
P B≥ x
x k=n+1 γk
λ
k
k=1

Applying Theorem 2.8 to the first factor on the last line of (3.4), and the estimate (3.6)
and the assumption (3.3) to the second factor in (3.4), we obtain
!2
!−1
n
∞
Xp
X
X
λi
(3.7)
.
lim inf x log P(S < x) ≥ −
λi
γk
−2
x→0+
γ
i
i≥1
k=1
k=n
√
P∞
P √
P
Recall that we have assumed that Λ = i≥1 λi < ∞, ∞
i=1
i=1 γi = 1, and
∞. Thus, when we let n → ∞ in (3.7), we obtain

λi
γi

<

lim inf x log P(S < x) ≥ −Λ.
x→0+

The opposite inequality follows from Proposition 3.1.



Theorem 3.4. Suppose that (Bi )i≥1 is a sequence of i.i.d. IED(1)-random variables
with finite expectation.
P∞ √ For any sequencePof∞ strictly positive real numbers (αi )i≥1 with
the property i=1 αi < ∞, the series i=1 αi Bi converges a.s., and the limit is an
P∞ √ 2
IED-random variable with parameter
αi .
i=1
Proof. We will apply Lemma 3.3. Let Xi = αi Bi and λi = αi for i ≥ 1, and let B be a
random variable with the same distribution as B1 . It is easy to see that assumptions
(i) and (ii) of Lemma 3.3 are satisfied.
P∞ √ −1
P∞ λi
P
√
Let c =
αi
and γi = c αi for i ≥ 1. Then ∞
i=1
i=1 γi =
i=1 γi = 1 and
−2
c < ∞, so two conditions listed in assumption (iii) of Lemma 3.3 are satisfied. It
remains to verify (3.3).
By the Markov inequality,


γi
λi
(3.8)
P B ≥ x ≤ x−1 E[B].
λi
γi


For every fixed i, limx→0+ xP B ≥ λγii x = 0, so for every fixed n,




∞
∞
X
X
γi
γi
P B≥ x .
lim sup x
P B ≥ x = lim sup x
λi
λi
x→0+
x→0+
i=n
i=1
By (3.8),


∞
∞
X
X
γi
λi
x
P B ≥ x ≤ EB
.
λ
γ
i
i
i=n
i=n

12

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Hence,


∞
∞
X
X
γi
λi
lim sup x
P B ≥ x ≤ EB
.
λ
γ
x→0+
i
i
i=1
i=n
P λi
Since EB < ∞ and ∞
i=1 γi < ∞, letting n → ∞, we obtain from the last estimate that
P∞ 
limx→0+ x i=1 P B ≥ λγii x = 0. We see that (3.3) holds and, therefore, the theorem
follows from Lemma 3.3.

The following corollary, stated without proof, is a straightforward consequence of
Theorem 3.4.
Corollary 3.5. Suppose that
i≥1 satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 3.4. Then
P (Bi )−2−ε
for all c, ε > 0, the series ∞
ci
Bi converges a.s. The limit is an IED-random
P∞i=1 −1−ε/2 2
variable with parameter c
.
i=1 i
The following theorem shows that if the parameters αi decrease at a geometric rate
then we can weaken the condition on the moments of Bi and obtain the same conclusion
as in Theorem 3.4.
We will use log+ a to denote max(0, log a) for a > 0. We will also write a+ = max(0, a)
for any real a.
Theorem 3.6. Suppose that (Bi )i≥1 is a sequence of i.i.d. IED(1)-random variables
satisfying E[log+ Bi ] < ∞. For any sequence of strictly P
positive real numbers (αi )i≥1
√
i
with the property lim supi→∞ αi = κ ∈ (0, 1), the series ∞
i=1 αi Bi converges a.s., and
P∞ √
2
the limit is an IED-random variable with parameter
αi .
i=1
Proof. We will apply Lemma 3.3. Let Xi = αi Bi and λi = αi for i ≥ 1, and let B be a
random variable with the same distribution as B1 . It is easy to see that assumptions
(i) and (ii) of Lemma 3.3 are satisfied. It only remains to show that condition (iii) is
satisfied.
P
Pick ζ ∈ (κ, 1), and set γi = ζ i−1 (1 − ζ). Note that ∞
i=1 γi = 1. It is clear that there
exist c > 0 and κ1 such that 0 < κ < κ1 < ζ and 0 ≤ λi ≤ cκi1 for all i ≥ 1. Hence,
P∞
i
ζ P∞
λ
/γ
≤
c
i
i
i=1
i=1 (κ1 /ζ) < ∞, so two conditions listed in assumption (iii) of
1−ζ
Lemma 3.3 are satisfied. It remains to verify (3.3).
We will use the following well known inequality, saying that for any positive random
variable X we have
∞
X
(3.9)
P(X ≥ k) ≤ EX + 1.
k=1

The above inequality is used to justify the second inequality below,

 X
 i !
∞
∞
X
γi
1−ζ ζ
P B≥ x ≤
P B≥
x
λi
ζc
κ1
i=1
i=1

 
∞
X
ζ
−1
=
P log B − log x + log(cζ(1 − ζ) ) ≥ i log
κ1
i=1

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

13
+

E (log B − log x + log(cζ(1 − ζ)−1 ))
≤
+1
log (ζ/κ1 )
E[log+ B] + | log x| + | log(cζ(1 − ζ)−1 |
≤
+ 1.
log (ζ/κ1 )
P
The last estimate implies that limx→0+ x ∞
i=1 P (B ≥ γi x/λi ) = 0 because we have
+
assumed that E[log Bi ] < ∞. We conclude that assumption (iii) of Lemma 3.3 holds.

4. Autoregressive equation
We will consider solutions to the autoregressive equation, a simple ARMA model, in
this section. More general ARMA models will be considered in subsequent sections.
We start by recalling a known result. We would like to point out that random
variables A and B need not be independent for the following to hold.
Theorem 4.1. If E[log |A|] < 0 and E[log+ B] < ∞ then (1.1) has a unique solution.
Suppose that (Ai , Bi )i≥1 are i.i.d. two-dimensional vectors distributed as (A, B).
(a) The distribution of the solution to (1.1) is the stationary distribution for the Markov
chain given by
(4.1)

Xn = An Xn−1 + Bn .

(b) The series
(4.2)

S=

∞
i−1
X
Y
i=1

!
Aj

Bi

j=1

converges a.s. and the distribution of the limit is the same as that of the solution
to (1.1).
Proof. By [3, Theorem 2.1.3] and [5, Theorem 2.1], the sequence (4.1) has a unique
ergodic invariant stationary distribution. Moreover, (4.2) is a representation of that
distribution. By [3, Lemma 2.2.7], this distribution is the unique solution to the fixed
point equation (1.1).

In the rest of this section we will take a look at the nonnegative solution to the
autoregressive equation
(4.3)

d

X = rX + B,

where 0 < r < 1 and B is an IED-random variable with parameter λ > 0.
Corollary 4.2. If E[log+ B] < ∞ then (4.3) has a unique solution. Suppose that (Bi )
are i.i.d. random variables distributed as B.
(a) The distribution of the solution to (4.3) is the stationary distribution of the Markov
chain given by
(4.4)

Xn = rXn−1 + Bn .

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

6
0

2

4

X[n]*log(n)

8

10

12

14

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

n

Figure 1. The figure shows the the graph of (log(n)Xn )n≥1 , where
(Xn )n≥1 is the ARMA process Xn+1 = 14 Xn + Bn+1 , where Bn =
min(En−1 , 1), En ’s are i.i.d exponential with parameter 1/2 and X0 = 0.
It follows from Proposition 4.4 that Λ = 2. This is visible in the graph
as the black line segments occasionally reach to the horizontal line at
level 2.
(b) The series
∞
X

(4.5)

ri−1 Bi

i=1

converges a.s. and the distribution of the limit is the same as that of the solution
to (4.3).
Proof. The corollary follows from Theorem 4.1.



Corollary 4.3. If B is an IED-random variable with parameter λ > 0, such that
E[log+ B] < ∞, and X is the solution to (4.3) then
lim x log P(X < x) =

x→0+

λ
√ .
(1 − r)2

Proof. The corollary follows from Theorem 3.6 and (4.5).



The following result is a special case of Theorem 5.3 so we leave it without proof.
Proposition 4.4. If E[(log+ B)s ] < ∞ for all s > 0, then for the sequence (4.4) we
have
λ
√
lim inf log(n)Xn = Λ :=
a.s.
n→∞
(1 − r)2
This proposition is illustrated in Figure 1. Note that the result holds with mild
assumptions on the right tail of B.

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

15

5. ARMA models with IED noise
This section is devoted to autoregressive moving average (ARMA) models more general than those in the previous section.
Definition 5.1. An ARMA(p, q) sequence with IED noise is a sequence of the form
p
q
X
X
(5.1)
Xn =
φi Xn−i + Bn +
θj Bn−j ,
i=1

j=1

where (φi )i=1,...,p , (θj )j=1,...,q are positive constants and (Bi )i≥1 is an i.i.d. IED-sequence.
Our analysis of ARMA models will be based on [2, Chap. 3]. Using the notation
from Definition 5.1, we define complex polynomials Φ and Θ by
Φ(z) = 1 − φ1 z − φ2 z 2 − . . . − φp z p

and Θ(z) = 1 + θ1 z + . . . + θq z q .

Theorem 5.2. Suppose that (Bn )n≥1 are i.i.d. IED(λ) random variables satisfying
E[log+ B1 ] < ∞. Assume that Φ(z) 6= 0 for |z| ≤ 1 and Φ and Θ have no common roots. Then Ψ(z) := Θ(z)/Φ(z) is analytic on a neighborhood of the unit disc
{|z| ≤ 1}, and its Taylor series, i.e.,
∞
X
ψk z k ,
(5.2)
Ψ(z) =
k=0

has positive coefficients.
(i) Random variables Xn can be represented as
n
X
ψk Bn−k .
(5.3)
Xn =
k=0

 P
√ 2 
n
(ii) Each Xn is an IED-random variable with parameter λ
ψk
.
k=0
 P √ 
P
2
d
∞
∞
ψk
(iii) When n → ∞, Xn →
k=0
k=0 ψk Bk , and the limit is an IED λ
random variable.
Proof. There exists ε > 0 such that |φ1 z + φ2 z 2 + . . . + φp z p | < 1 for |z| < ε. For such
z,
∞
X
Ψ(z) =
(φ1 z + φ2 z 2 + . . . + φp z p )j (1 + θ1 z + . . . + θq z q ).
j=0

It is evident from this formula that for |z| < ε, Ψ(z) can be represented as a series with
positive coefficients. By the uniqueness of Taylor series, all ψk ’s are positive.
The function Ψ is analytic on a disc around 0 whose radius is greater than 1. Hence,
the Taylor series of Ψ around 0 has a convergence radius R > 1. By the CauchyHadamard formula, lim supk→∞ |ψk |1/k = R−1 < 1. Therefore, there existPC > 0 and
0 < β < 1 such that ψk < Cβ k for k ≥ 0. This implies that both series k≥1 ψk and
P √
ψk converge.
k≥1
Part (i) follows from [2, Thm. 3.1.1]. Part (ii) follows from Theorem 2.8. Part (iii)
follows from Theorem 3.6.


16

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

We will now prove a generalization of Proposition 4.4.
Theorem 5.3. Consider an ARMA sequence (5.1) satisfying the assumptions of Theorem 5.2 and recall the notation from (5.2). If E[(log+ B)r ] < ∞ for all r > 0, then
!2
∞
X
p
lim inf log(n)Xn = Λ := λ
ψk
a.s.
n→∞

k=0

The proof will be preceded by a few lemmas.
Lemma 5.4. (i) For every ε > 0,
Xn ≤

Λ
(1 + ε) log n

happens finitely often almost surely.
(ii) We have
lim inf log(n)Xn ≥ Λ a.s.
n→∞

Proof. (i) For any ε > 0 there exists δ ∈ (0, 1) such that γ := (1 − δ)(1 + ε) > 1. By
Lemma 2.7 and Theorem 5.2, there exist Cδ and n0 such that P(Xn0 ≤ x) ≤ Cδ e−Λ(1−δ)/x
for all x > 0.
Random variables Bk are i.i.d., so (5.3) implies that
Xn =

n
X

d

ψk Bn−k =

n
X

ψk Bk .

k=0

k=0

Since ψk ’s and Bk ’s are nonnegative, it follows that Xn+1 stochastically majorizes Xn
for all n. Hence, n 7→ P(Xn ≤ x) is a non-increasing sequence and, therefore, for
n ≥ n0 ,
P(Xn ≤ x) ≤ Cδ e−Λ(1−δ)/x .
It follows that

P Xn ≤

Λ
(1 + ε) log n



≤ Cδ e−(1+ε)(1−δ) log n = Cδ n−γ .

Hence,

∞
X
P Xn ≤
n=1

Λ
(1 + ε) log n


< ∞,

and the claim follows by the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
(ii) It follows from part (i) that for every ε > 0,
lim inf log(n)Xn ≥ Λ/(1 + ε).
n→∞

Part (ii) follows by letting ε → 0.



INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

17

It will be convenient to use the following notation, reminiscent of (5.3),
Xnm

(5.4)

=

n−m−1
X

ψk Bn−k .

k=0

We will write ρα (n) = bnα c.
√
Lemma 5.5. Fix ε > 0 and suppose that 1 < 1 + δ < 1 + ε and α ∈ (1, 1 + δ). Events


Λ(1 + ε)
ρα (n−1)
Xρα (n) ≤
log nα
happen infinitely often a.s.
ρ (n−1)

Proof. Note that the random variables Xραα(n) , n ≥ 2, are jointly independent.
P
ρα (n−1)
. By
The random variable S := ∞
k=0 ψk Bk stochastically majorizes every Xρα (n)
Theorem 5.2 (ii) and Lemma 2.7,






Λ(1 + ε)
Λ(1 + ε)
Λ(1 + δ)
ρα (n−1)
P Xρα (n) ≤
≥P S≤
≥P S≤
log nα
log nα
log nα/(1+δ)
≥ cδ n−α/(1+δ) .
It follows that


∞
X
Λ(1 + ε)
ρα (n−1)
P Xρα (n) ≤
= ∞,
log nα
n=2
and, therefore, the claim follows by the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
Lemma 5.6. When n → ∞,


ρ (n−1)
→0
log ρα (n) Xρα (n) − Xραα(n)

a.s.

Proof. We have
ρα (n)

Xρα (n) −

ρ (n−1)
Xραα(n)

ρα (n−1)

X

=

ψk Bρα (n)−k =

X

ψρα (n)−ρα (n−1)+j Bρα (n−1)−j .

j=0

k=ρα (n)−ρα (n−1)

This and the estimate ψk ≤ Cβ k from the proof of Theorem 5.2 yield
ρα (n−1)

(5.5)

Xρα (n) −

ρ (n−1)
Xραα(n)

≤

X

Cβ ρα (n)−ρα (n−1)+j Bρα (n−1)−j

j=0
ρα (n−1)

= Cβ

ρα (n)−ρα (n−1)

X
j=0

β j Bρα (n−1)−j .



18

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Recall that β ∈ (0, 1) and α > 1. It is not hard to show that there exists c > 0 such
that ρα (n) − ρα (n − 1) ≥ cnα−1 for large n, so
ρα (n−1)

Xρα (n) −

(5.6)

ρ (n−1)
Xραα(n)

≤ Cβ

cnα−1

X

β j Bρα (n−1)−j .

j=0

We use the assumption that E[(log+ B)α/(α−1) ] < ∞ and inequality (3.9) to see that,
for any c1 > 0,
∞
∞


 X

X
c1 (α−1)/α
c1
n
P Bn ≥ β 2
=
P log Bn ≥ n(α−1)/α log β −1
2
n=1
n=1


∞
∞

 X
X
c1 (α−1)/α
2
+
+
−1
(α−1)/α
≤
P log Bn ≥ n
log β
=
P
log Bn ≥ n
2
c1 log β −1
n=1
n=1
!

α/(α−1)
∞
X

2
α/(α−1)
P
log+ Bn
≥n
=
−1
c
log
β
1
n=1
!
α/(α−1)


2
α/(α−1)
≤E
log+ Bn
< ∞.
c1 log β −1
By the Borel-Cantelli lemma, β
obtain, a.s.
c

α−1

lim β 2 n

n→∞

c1 (α−1)/α
n
2

Bn → 0, a.s. We let c1 = c2(α−1)/α and we

c

(α−1)/α

Bρα (n−1) ≤ lim β 2 (2ρα (n−1))
n→∞
c

It follows that L := supn≥1 β 2 n

α−1

Xρα (n) −

c1 α−1
n
2

n→∞

Bρα (n) = 0.

Bρα (n−1) < ∞, a.s. This and (5.6) imply that
ρα (n−1)

ρ (n−1)
Xραα(n)

Bρα (n−1) ≤ lim β

≤ Cβ

c α−1
n
2

X

 c α−1

β j β 2 n Bρα (n−1)−j

j=0
ρα (n−1)
c

≤ Cβ 2 n
c

≤ Cβ 2 n

α−1

X

α−1

j=0
∞
X

 c α−1

β ρα (n−1)−j β 2 n Bρα (n−1)
c

α−1

β j L = Cβ 2 n

j=0

1
L.
1−β

Thus, a.s.,


lim sup log ρα (n) Xρα (n) −
n→∞

ρ (n−1)
Xραα(n)



c

α−1

≤ lim sup log ρα (n)Cβ 2 n
n→∞

1
L = 0.
1−β


Proof of Theorem 5.3. By Lemmas 5.6 and 5.5, for every ε > 0,
lim inf log(n)Xn ≤ lim inf log (ρα (n)) Xρα (n)
n→∞
n→∞




ρ (n−1)
ρ (n−1)
= lim inf log (ρα (n)) Xρα (n) − Xραα(n)
+ log (ρα (n)) Xραα(n)
n→∞

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

19

≤ Λ(1 + ε).
Hence, lim inf n→∞ log(n)Xn ≤ Λ, a.s. The theorem follows from this and Lemma 5.4
(ii).

6. Random multiplicative coefficient
So far, we only considered products of IED random variables with constants. In
(4.3), the multiplicative coefficient in the stochastic fixed point equation was a constant. In this section we will look into the case when these constants are replaced with
nonnegative random variables independent of other random elements of the model.
Recall the following definition of essential infimum of a random variable A.
ess inf(A) := sup{x ∈ R : P(A < x) = 0}.
We state without proof some elementary properties of essential infimum.
Lemma 6.1. Suppose that A is a nonnegative random variable.
(a) For all ε > 0, P(A ∈ [ess inf(A), ess inf(A) + ε)) > 0.
(b) ess inf(A) = max{x ≥ 0 : P(A ≥ x) = 1}.
(c) ess inf(A) = max{x ≥ 0 : P(A < x) = 0}.
Theorem 6.2. Suppose that A is a nonnegative random variable and its essential infimum is equal to a. If X is an IED(λ)-random variable independent of A then AX is
an IED(aλ)-random variable.
Proof. Since a is the essential infimum of A,
P(AX < x) = P(AX < x, a ≤ A) ≤ P(aX < x).
By definition of an IED random variable,
lim sup x log P(AX < x) ≤ lim x log P(aX < x) = −aλ.
x→0+

x→0+

Let ε > 0. Then
P(AX < x) ≥ P(AX < x, a ≤ A ≤ a + ε)
≥ P((a + ε)X < x, a ≤ A ≤ a + ε)
= P((a + ε)X < x)P(a ≤ A ≤ a + ε).
By definition of an IED random variable and Lemma 6.1 (a),
lim inf x log P(AX < x) ≥ lim x(log P((a + ε)X < x) + log P(a ≤ A ≤ a + ε))
x→0+

x→0+

= −(a + ε)λ.
The proof is completed by letting ε → 0+.



Corollary 6.3. Let (Ai , Xi )ni=1 be a sequence of independent two-dimensional vectors
such that for all i = 1 . . . n,
(a) Ai and Xi are nonnegative and independent;
(b) Xi is an IED(λi )-random variable.

20

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Then A1 X1 + . . . + An Xn is an IED-random variable with the parameter
p
2
p
ess inf(A1 )λ1 + . . . + ess inf(An )λn .
Proof. The corollary follows from Theorem 6.2 and Theorem 2.8.



If we add the assumption of independence between random variables A and B then
we can obtain the following result.
Theorem 6.4. Let (Ai , Bi )ni=1 be an i.i.d. sequence of two-dimensional vectors with the
following properties.
(i) A1 and B1 are nonnegative and independent random variables.
(ii) E[log A1 ] < 0 and E[log+ B1 ] < ∞.
(iii) B1 is an IED(λ)-random variable.
Then
!
∞
i−1
X
Y
S=
Aj Bi
i=1

j=1

 
−2 
p
converges a.s. to an IED λ 1 − ess inf(A1 )
random variable.
Before we prove the theorem we will need the following lemma.
Lemma 6.5. Let (Vn ) be a random walk ith a negative drift, i.e., E(Vn − Vn−1 ) < 0.
Then there exists x > 0 such that


P sup Vn < x > 0.
n≥0


Proof. Assume the opposite. Then for every x > 0,P supn≥0 Vn < x = 0 and, there
fore, limx→∞ P supn≥0 Vn < x = P supn≥0 Vn < ∞ = 0. Hence, P supn≥0 Vn = ∞ =
1. This contradicts the strong law of large numbers because the latter implies that
Vn → −∞ a.s.

Proof of Theorem 6.4. Set a := ess inf(A1 ). Since E[log A1 ] < 0, it follows that a < 1.
To derive the upper bound, we note that
!
(∞
)
!
\
X
\
P(S < x) = P {S < x} ∩
{a ≤ An } ≤ P
ai−1 Bi < x ∩
{a ≤ An }
i=1

n≥1

=P

∞
X

n≥1

!
ai−1 Bi < x .

i=1

It follows from Theorem 3.6 that,
(6.1)

lim sup x log P(S < x) ≤ lim sup x log P
x→0+

x→0+

∞
X
i=1

!
ai−1 Bi < x

=

λ
√ .
(1 − a)2

Next we will prove the lower bound. If A1 = a a.s. then the theorem follows from
Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.2.

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

21

Assume that P(A1 > a) > 0. Then log a < E[log A1 ]. Recall that E[log A1 ] < 0. Fix
some ε > 0 such that log(a + ε) < E[log A1 ] + ε < 0. Then
)!
( j
k
∞
Y
\
\
An ≤ ej(E[log A1 ]+ε)
P(S < x) ≥ P {S < x} ∩
{An ≤ a + ε} ∩
n=1

( k
X

≥P

j=k+1

(a + ε)i−1 Bi +

i=1

∩

k
\

n=1

)

i−1
Bi < x ∩
eE[log A1 ]+ε

∞
X
i=k+1

{An ≤ a + ε} ∩

n=1

∞
\

(

j
Y

)!
An ≤ ej(E[log A1 ]+ε)

n=1

j=k+1

)!
( k
∞
X
X

i−1
Bi < x
×
=P
(a + ε)i−1 Bi +
eE[log A1 ]+ε

(6.2)

i=1

×P

(6.3)

i=k+1

k
\

{An ≤ a + ε} ∩

n=1

∞
\

(

j=k+1

j
Y

)!
An ≤ ej(E[log A1 ]+ε)

.

n=1

We will show that the probability in (6.3) is strictly greater than 0. This probability is
equal to
( k
)!
j
∞
k
\
X
\
X
P
{An ≤ a + ε} ∩
log Ai +
log Ai ≤ j(E[log A1 ] + ε)
n=1

j=k+1
k
\

≥P

i=1

i=k+1

{An ≤ a + ε}∩

n=1

∩

(

∞
\
j=k+1

j
X

)!
(log Ai − E[log A1 ] − ε) ≤ k(E[log A1 ] + ε − log(a + ε))

i=k+1

= P(A1 ≤ a + ε)k ×
(6.4)

×P

sup
j≥k+1

j
X

!
(log Ai − E[log A1 ] − ε) ≤ k(E[log A1 ] + ε − log(a + ε)) .

i=k+1

We will use Lemma 6.5 to argue that the probability in (6.4) is strictly positive for
P
some fixed k. The process Vj := ji=k+1 (log Ai − E[log A1 ] − ε) is a random walk with
negative drift. By our choice of ε, the quantity E[log A1 ] + ε − log(a + ε) is strictly
positive so we can make k(E[log A1 ] + ε − log(a + ε)) arbitrarily large by making k large.
According to Lemma 6.5, the probability in (6.4) is strictly positive for some k. This
completes the proof that the probability in (6.3) is strictly positive.
Going back to (6.2) and (6.3), using the fact that eE[log A1 ]+ε < 1 and applying Theorem 3.6, we obtain,
!
k
∞
X
X
lim inf x log P(S < x) ≥ lim x log P
(a + ε)i−1 Bi +
(eE[log A1 ]+ε )i−1 Bi < x
x→0+

x→0+

i=1

i=k+1

22

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ
∞
k
X
X
i−1
i−1
2
= −λ
(a + ε) +
(eE[log A1 ]+ε ) 2
i=1

!2
.

i=k+1

Letting k → ∞ yields,
lim inf x log P(S < x) ≥
x→0+

−λ
1

(1 − (a + ε) 2 )2

.

Finally we let ε → 0+ to see that
lim inf x log P(S < x) ≥
x→0+

−λ
√ 2.
(1 − a)

This and (6.1) prove the theorem.



We now link Theorem 6.4 to the stochastic fixed point equation.
Corollary 6.6. Suppose that the vector (A, B) satisfies the following.
(i) A and B are nonnegative independent random variables.
(ii) E[log A] < 0.
(iii) B is an IED(λ)-random variable and E[log+ B] < ∞.
Then the stochastic fixed point equation
d

X = AX + B
has a unique solution with the property
(6.5)

lim x log P(X < x) = −

x→0+

λ
p
.
(1 − ess inf(A))2

Proof. The corollary follows from Theorem 4.1. and Theorem 6.4.



−2
p
We will now interpret the parameter λ 1 − ess inf(A1 )
that appeared in Theorem 6.4 in a way similar to that in Proposition 4.4.
Theorem 6.7. Let (Ai , Bi )∞
i=1 be an i.i.d. sequence of two-dimensional vectors with the
following properties.
(i) A1 and B1 are nonnegative and independent random variables.
(ii) There exists β ∈ (0, 1) with the property that A1 ≤ β a.s.
(iii) E[(log+ B1 )s ] < ∞ for all s > 0.
(iv) B1 is an IED(λ)-random variable.
Let X0 = 0 and
(6.6)

Xn = An Xn−1 + Bn ,

Then
lim inf log(n)Xn = Λ := 
n→∞

n ≥ 1.
λ

1−

2 a.s.
p
ess inf(A1 )

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

23

The structure of the proof will be similar to that of Theorem 5.3, however some new
technical steps will be needed. In all lemmas preceding the proof of Theorem 6.7, we
tacitly make the same assumptions as in the theorem.
d

Lemma 6.8. (a) Let S be defined as in (4.2). We have Xn → S as n → ∞ and
P(S ≤ x) ≤ P(Xn ≤ x) ≤ P(Xn−1 ≤ x)

(6.7)

for all n ≥ 1 and x ≥ 0.
(b) Let a = ess infA1 . For every n ≥ 1, Xn is an IED-random variable with parameter
1 − an/2
√ .
λ
1− a
P Qi−1 
Proof. Set Sn = ni=1
j=1 Aj Bi . Definition (6.6) implies the following representa

Qn
P
Bn−i+1 . This and the change of index i 7→ n − i + 1
A
tion, Xn = ni=1
j
j=n−i+2
d

easily show that Xn = Sn . Therefore, P(Xn ≤ x) = P(Sn ≤ x). Since Aj ’s and Bj ’s
are non-negative, Sn ↑ S a.s. All claims made in part (a) follow easily from these
observations.
The definition of the essential infimum a and the assumption that Ai ’s and Bi ’s are
non-negative imply that
P(Sn ≤ x) ≤ P(an−1 Bn + an−2 Bn−2 + . . . + aB2 + B1 ≤ x),
and for ε > 0,
P(Sn ≤ x) ≥ P(Sn ≤ x, A1 ∈ [a, a + ε], A2 ∈ [a, a + ε], . . . , An−1 ∈ [a, a + ε]),
≥ P((a + ε)n−1 Bn + (a + ε)n−2 Bn−2 + . . . + (a + ε)B2 + B1 ≤ x)×
× P(A1 ∈ [a, a + ε])n−1 .
Recall that P(Xn ≤ x) = P(Sn ≤ x) and use Theorem 2.8 to see that
√
1 − ( a + ε)n
√
lim inf x log P(Xn ≤ x) = lim inf x log P(Sn ≤ x) ≥ λ
,
x→0+
x→0+
1− a+ε
1 − an/2
√ .
lim sup x log P(Xn ≤ x) = lim sup x log P(Sn ≤ x) ≤ λ
1− a
x→0+
x→0+
We complete the proof of (b) by letting ε → 0.
Lemma 6.9. (i) For every ε > 0,

Xn ≤

Λ
(1 + ε) log n





happens finitely often almost surely.
(ii) We have
lim inf log(n)Xn ≥ Λ a.s.
n→∞

24

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Proof. (i) For any ε > 0 there exists δ ∈ (0, 1) such that γ := (1 − δ)(1 + ε) > 1. By
Lemma 2.7 and part (b) of Lemma 6.8, there exist Cδ and n0 such that P(Xn0 ≤ x) ≤
Cδ e−Λ(1−δ)/x for all x > 0. By part (a) of Lemma 6.8, for n ≥ n0 and x > 0,
P(Xn ≤ x) ≤ Cδ e−Λ(1−δ)/x .
It follows that

P Xn ≤

Λ
(1 + ε) log n



≤ Cδ e−(1+ε)(1−δ) log n = Cδ n−γ .

Hence,

∞
X
P Xn ≤
n=1

Λ
(1 + ε) log n


< ∞,

and the claim follows by the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
(ii) Part (i) implies that for every ε > 0,
lim inf log(n)Xn ≥ Λ/(1 + ε).
n→∞

Part (ii) follows by letting ε → 0.



We will use the convention that for any sequence (dn ) and i > j,
Qj
n=i dn = 1.
From definition (6.6), we obtain for n ≥ m,
(6.8)

Pj

n=i

dn = 0 and

Xn = Bn + An Xn−1 = Bn + An Bn−1 + An An−1 Xn−2 = . . .
!
!
n
n
n
X
Y
Y
Ak X m .
=
Ak Bj +
j=m+1

k=j+1

k=m+1

We rearrange terms and define new random variables,
!
n
n
Y
X
(6.9)
Xnm := Xn −
Ak X m =
k=m+1

j=m+1

n
Y

!
Ak

Bj .

k=j+1

The notation Xnm is the same as in (5.4) but the meaning is different. We have chosen
the same notation for a different object because this will allow us to reuse a part of the
proof of Lemma 5.6.
m
Lemma 6.10. (a) Let Y0 = 0 and Yk := Xm+k
for k ≥ 1. The sequence (Yk : k ≥ 0)
satisfies
Yk+1 = Am+k+1 Yk + Bm+k+1 .
m
(b) For every m ≥ 0, the sequence (Xm+k
: k ≥ 0) has the same distribution as
(Xk : k ≥ 0).

Proof. The claim in (a) follows from (6.9). Part (b) follows from (a).
We will write ρα (n) = bnα c.



INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

Lemma 6.11. Fix ε > 0 and suppose that 1 < 1 + δ <
Events


Λ(1 + ε)
ρα (n−1)
Xρα (n) ≤
log nα
happen infinitely often a.s.

25

√

1 + ε and α ∈ (1, 1 + δ).

Proof. We use Lemma 6.10 (b) and (6.7) to see that
 X



∞
∞
X
Λ(1 + ε)
Λ(1 + ε)
ρα (n−1)
P Xρα (n) ≤
=
P Xρα (n)−ρα (n−1) ≤
log nα
log nα
n=1
n=1


∞
X
Λ(1 + ε)
.
≥
P S≤
log nα
n=1
The random variable S is IED(Λ) by Theorem 6.4, so we can use Lemma 2.7 to write




Λ(1 + ε)
Λ(1 + δ)
P S≤
≥P S≤
≥ cδ n−α/(1+δ) .
log nα
log nα/(1+δ)
It follows that


∞
X
Λ(1 + ε)
ρα (n−1)
= ∞.
P Xρα (n) ≤
log nα
n=2
ρ (n−1)

This, the fact that the random variables Xραα(n) , n ≥ 2, are jointly independent and
the Borel-Cantelli lemma imply the claim made in the lemma.

Lemma 6.12. When n → ∞,


ρ (n−1)
→0
log ρα (n) Xρα (n) − Xραα(n)

a.s.

Proof. We first use (6.9) and then (6.8) with m = 0 to obtain


ρα (n)
Y
ρ (n−1)
Xρα (n) − X α
=
Ak  Xρα (n−1)
ρα (n)

k=ρα (n−1)+1





ρα (n)

Y

=

Ak  

ρα (n−1)

=

X
j=1

ρα (n−1)

Y


ρα (n)



Y

Ak  Bj .





X
j=1

k=ρα (n−1)+1



ρα (n−1)





Ak  Bj 

k=j+1

k=j+1

We apply assumption (ii) of Theorem 6.7, a part of assumption (i) (namely, that Ak ’s
and Bk ’s are nonnegative), and the change of index i = ρα (n − 1) − j, to see that


ρα (n−1)
ρα (n)
ρα (n−1)
Y
X
X
ρα (n−1)


Xρα (n) − Xρα (n) =
Ak Bj ≤
β ρα (n)−j Bj
j=1

k=j+1

j=1

26

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ
ρα (n−1)−1

=

X

β ρα (n)−ρα (n−1)+i Bρα (n−1)−i .

i=0

The rest of the proof is the same as the proof of Lemma 5.6 starting at (5.5), with
C = 1.

Proof of Theorem 6.7. By Lemmas 6.12 and 6.11, for every ε > 0,
lim inf log(n)Xn ≤ lim inf log (ρα (n)) Xρα (n)
n→∞
n→∞




ρα (n−1)
ρα (n−1)
= lim inf log (ρα (n)) Xρα (n) − Xρα (n)
+ log (ρα (n)) Xρα (n)
n→∞

≤ Λ(1 + ε).
Hence, lim inf n→∞ log(n)Xn ≤ Λ a.s. The theorem follows from this and Lemma 6.9
(ii).

The following theorem is a version of the well-known results by Kesten [8] and Goldie
[6], formulated in [3, Theorem 2.4.4].
Theorem 6.13. Assume that (A, B) satisfy the following conditions.
(i) A ≥ 0, a.s., and the law of log A conditioned on {A > 0} is non-arithmetic, i.e.,
it is not supported on aZ for any a > 0.
(ii) There exists α > 0 such that E[|A|α ] = 1, E[|B|α ] < ∞ and E[Aα log+ A] < ∞.
(iii) P(Ax + B = x) < 1 for every x ∈ R.
d

Then the equation X = AX + B has a solution. There exist constants c+ , c− such that
c+ + c− > 0 and
(6.10)

P(X > x) ∼ c+ x−α

and

P(X < −x) ∼ c− x−α ,

The constants c+ , c− are given by


1
E (AX + B)α+ − (AX)α+ ,
c+ =
αmα

c− =

when x → ∞.



1
E (AX + B)α− − (AX)α− ,
αmα

where mα = E[Aα log+ A].
Next we will combine the results of Kesten and Goldie with our own.
Theorem 6.14. Assume that (A, B) satisfy the following conditions.
(i) A and B are nonnegative, non-constant and independent random variables.
(ii) There exists α > 0 such that E[Aα ] = 1, E[Aα log A] < ∞ and log A conditioned
on {A > 0} is a non-arithmetic random variable.
(iii) B is an IED(λ)-random variable and E[B α ] < ∞.
d

Then the stochastic fixed point equation X = AX + B has a unique solution with the
property
(6.11)

lim x log P(X < x) = −

x→0+

λ
p
.
(1 − ess inf(A))2

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

27

Moreover,
lim xα P(X > x)

(6.12)

x→∞

exists and is a positive number.
Proof. To prove (6.11), we will show that assumptions of Corollary 6.6 are satisfied.
Since x 7→ log x is concave and A is non-constant, we have αE[log A] < log E[Aα ] = 0,
so assumption (ii) of Corollary 6.6 holds. The other assumptions also hold so (6.11)
follows from (6.5).
We note that assumptions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 6.13 hold. We will verify assumption (iii). For every x 6= 0, random variables B and x(1 − A) are non-constant and
independent so P(B = x(1 − A)) < 1. Hence, P(Ax + B = x) < 1. Since B is nonconstant, the same conclusion holds for x = 0. All assumptions of Theorem 6.13 have
been verified, so the claim made about (6.12) is a consequence of (6.10).

7. Dependent coefficients in the fixed point equation
This section has a double purpose. First, we will explain how the questions studied
in this paper arose in a different project. That project is devoted to a rather different
topic so we will only sketch some of its ideas. Needless to say, we hope that our present
results will be used to study other models.
Second, the fixed point equation (1.1) coming from the other project has dependent
coefficients A and B, unlike in the first six sections of this paper. We plan to develop
a theory for such equations in a future article. Here we will limit ourselves to showing
that the lack of independence can make a substantial difference to the main results on
IED random variables.
7.1. Motivation. In the rest of this section, we will assume that the vector (A, B) has
the following density.
1/2 − 1 2 /b
2

(7.1)

P(A ∈ da, B ∈ db) =

e−(a

)

1/2 + 1 2 /b
2

− e−(a
√
2 πab

)

e−1/(4b)
· √ 3/2 ,
πb

a, b > 0.

We will now explain how this density arose in a project on the Fleming-Viot type
process (see [4]). Our new results are in preparation but one can find the following
basic scheme in [1]. Let:
• W1 = (W1 (t) : t ≥ 0) and W2 = (W2 (t) : t ≥ 0) be two independent Brownian
motions;
• τ1 and τ2 , respectively, be the first times W1 and W2 hit 0;
• T = min{τ1 , τ2 } and Y = max{W1 (T ), W2 (T )}.
One can show that




(1+y)2 +1
(1−y)2 +1
exp − 2t
− exp − 2t
P(Y ∈ dy, T ∈ dt) =
dtdy,
y, t > 0.
πt2
The distribution given in (7.1) is obtained by the substitution A = Y −2 , B = T Y −2 .

28

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Let Yn denote the position and let Tn denote the time of the n-th renewal of the
Fleming-Viot type process. Self-similarity of the process implies that (Tn /Yn2 )n≥1 is an
iterated random sequence, whose limiting behavior is described by the stochastic fixed
√
d
point equation X = AX + B. We are interested in the right tail behavior of Yn / Tn
for large n. It turns out that this is equivalent to estimating P(X < x) as x → 0+ .
7.2. Dependent coefficients. We start with some basic facts about the distribution
defined in (7.1).
Recall that ∼ means that the ratio of two quantities converges to 1.
Proposition 7.1. Assume that the vector (A, B) has the distribution given by (7.1).
(a) The density of A is
4
(7.2)
P(A ∈ da) =
da.
π(4a2 + 1)
(b) The density of B is
Z

1
P(B ∈ db) = √
π

(7.3)

√1
2b

− √1

2b

−v 2 /2

e
√ dv
2π

!

e−1/(4b)
db.
b3/2

Moreover,
Z

x

P(B < x) ∼

(7.4)

0

e−1/(4b)
√ 3/2 db
πb

P(B > x) ∼

(7.5)

1
πx

as x → 0+ ,

as x → ∞.

Random variable B is IED(1/4).
Proof. (a) We integrate the density of (A, B) with respect to b over (0, ∞) to compute
the density of A.




2
2
(a1/2 − 21 ) + 41
(a1/2 + 21 ) + 14
Z ∞ exp −
− exp −
b
b
√ 2
P(A ∈ da) =
dbda
2π ab
0



 

2
2
(a1/2 − 21 ) + 14
(a1/2 + 21 ) + 14
Z ∞ exp −
Z ∞ exp −
b
b

1 

= √ 
db
−
db
 da
2
2
b
b
2π a 0
0
1
= √
2π a
=

"

1
a1/2 −


1 2
2

+

1
4

−

#

1
a1/2 +


1 2
2

+

1
4

da

da
.
π a2 + 14

(b) In the following calculation, we use the substitution u =
P(B ∈ db)

√
a.

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

29





2
2
(a1/2 − 21 )
(a1/2 + 12 )
Z ∞ exp −
− exp −
b
b
e−1/(4b)
√
da √ 3/2 db
=
πb
2 πab
0




2
2
(u− 1 )
(u+ 1 )
Z ∞ exp − b2
− exp − b2
e−1/(4b)
√
du √ 3/2 db
=
πb
πb
0

 



2
2
(u− 21 )
(u+ 21 )
Z ∞ exp − b
Z
 ∞ exp − b
 e−1/(4b)

√
√
=
du −
du
 √πb3/2 db
πb
πb
0
0
Z ∞ −u2 /b ! −1/(4b)
2
e−u /b
e
e
√ du −
√ du √ 3/2 db
1
πb
πb
πb
− 12
2
!
Z 1 −u2 /b
2 e
e−1/(4b)
√ du √ 3/2 db
πb
πb
− 21
Z √1 −v2 /2 ! −1/(4b)
2b e
e
√ dv √ 3/2 db.
1
πb
2π
−√

Z
=
=
=

∞

2b

This proves (7.3). We use (7.3) and the following facts,
Z √1 −v2 /2
p
2b e
1
√ dv = √
and lim e−1/(4b) = 1,
lim b/2
b→∞
b→∞
1
2π
2π
−√
2b
to conclude that, when x → ∞,
1
P(B > x) ∼
π

∞

Z

b−2 db =

x

1
.
πx

This proves (7.5). Since
Z
lim

b→0+

√1
2b

− √1

2b

2

e−v /2
√ dv = 1,
2π

+

we obtain for x → 0 ,
Z
P(B < x) ∼
0

x

e−1/(4b)
√ 3/2 db.
πb

This proves (7.4). The claim that B is an IED( 41 )-random variable follows from (7.4)
by the same arguments as in Lemma 2.5.

Lemma 7.2. If (A1 , B1 ) and (A2 , B2 ) are independent random vectors with the density
(7.1) then
(7.6)

lim sup ε log P(A2 B1 + B2 < ε) ≤ −
ε→0+

3
1
<− .
10
4

30

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

Remark 7.3. Suppose that (A1 , B1 ) and (A2 , B2 ) are i.i.d., and A1 and B1 are independent with distributions (7.2) and (7.3). Then ess inf(A1 ) = 0 and B1 is IED( 41 ). By
Corollary 6.3, limε→0+ ε log P(A2 B1 + B2 < ε) = − 14 . However, (7.6) shows that we do
not have the same conclusion when A1 and B1 are not independent.
Proof of Lemma 7.2. First, recall that by Lemma 2.7, for every δ > 0 there exists C > 0
such that for all x > 0,

 

1
−1
.
P(B1 < x) ≤ C exp −
−δ x
4
The second inequality in the following calculation is justified by the above formula.
Later in the calculation, we will use the substitution y = a1/2 .
P(A2 B1 + B2 < ε)

exp −

∞

Z εZ
=

(a1/2 − 12 )

2

b

P(aB1 + b < ε)
0

0



Z εZ
≤

∞


P B1 <

0

0

ε−b
a



2
(a1/2 + 21 ) + 14
− exp −
b
√
da db
2πb2 a

2 1

+ 41



a1/2 − 21 ) + 4
b

 exp − (

√
2πb2 a

da db



2
a1/2 − 21 ) + 14
(

 exp −
 
Z εZ ∞
b
a
1
√
−δ
≤
C exp −
da db
4
ε−b
2πb2 a
0
0


2
a1/2 − 21 )
(
1
  exp −
 
Z εZ ∞
− 4b
ε
a
1
√
−δ
≤
C exp −
da db
4
ε
2πb2 a
0
0
"
2 
 #!
Z ∞
Z ε −1/(4b)
1
1
1
e
−1
1/2
√ exp −ε
√ 2 db
=C
a −
+
−δ a
da
2
4
2 πa
πb
0
0
#!
"

2

Z ∞
1
2
1
1
5
√ exp −ε−1
=C
−δ
a1/2 −
+ −
da ×
4
5 − 4δ
4 5 − 4δ
2 πa
0
Z ε −1/(4b)
e
√ 2 db
×
πb
0

" 
2 
−1 #1/2 Z ∞
2
√ ε 5
y − 5−4δ
1
r h
≤C 2
−δ
exp − h
−1 i  dy ×
i

ε
5
2 4
−1
−∞
2 2 4 −δ
2π 2ε 45 − δ


 Z ε −1/(4b)
1
1
e
−1
√ 2 db
× exp −ε
−
4 5 − 4δ
πb
0
" 
−1 #1/2


 Z ε −1/(4b)
√ ε 5
1
1
e
−1
√ 2 db.
−δ
−
=C 2
exp −ε
2 4
4 5 − 4δ
πb
0

INVERSE EXPONENTIAL DECAY

31

By the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.5,
Z ε −1/(4b)
e
√ 2 db = −1/4.
lim sup ε log
πb
ε→0+
0
This and the previous estimate yield
1
1 1
.
lim sup ε log P(A2 B1 + B2 < ε) ≤ − − +
4 4 5 − 4δ
ε→0+
The proof of the lemma is completed by letting δ → 0+ .



Proposition 7.4. Assume that the vector (A, B) has the distribution given by (7.1).
The stochastic fixed point equation
d

(7.7)

X = AX + B,

has a unique solution and we have
(7.8)

lim sup ε log P(X < ε) ≤ −
ε→0+

3
1
<− .
10
4

Proof. We use the substitution a = x/2 in the following calculation.
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞
4 log a
log(x/2)
log x − log 2
E[log A] =
da = 2
dx = 2
dx
2
2
π(4a + 1)
π(x + 1)
π(x2 + 1)
0
0
0
Z ∞
Z ∞
1
log x
= −2 log 2
dx +
dx.
2
π(x + 1)
π(x2 + 1)
0
0
R∞
R ∞ log x
It is easy to see that 0 π(x21+1) dx = 1/2. The substitution y = x−1 yields 0 π(x
2 +1) dx =
R ∞ log y
− 0 π(y2 +1) dy, so these integrals must be equal to 0. Hence, E[log A] = − log 2 < 0.
It follows from (7.5) that E[log+ B] < ∞. The assumptions of Theorem 4.1 are
satisfied so (7.7) has a unique solution.
Suppose that X is the solution to (7.7). It is non-negative because it has the repred
sentation (4.2), where all random variables are non-negative. Suppose that (A1 , B1 ) =
d
(A, B), (A2 , B2 ) = (A, B), and (A1 , B1 ), (A2 , B2 ) and X are jointly independent. Then
P(X < ε) = P(A1 X + B1 < ε) = P(A2 (A1 X + B1 ) + B2 < ε) ≤ P(A2 B1 + B2 < ε).
Now (7.8) follows from Lemma 7.2.



Remark 7.5. One can actually show that
1
lim+ ε log P(X < ε) = − .
ε→0
2
However, the proof would take several additional pages so we will only sketch it. An
appropriate modification of the argument in the proof of Lemma 7.2 shows that for the
sequence Xn = An Xn−1 + Bn with X0 = 0, we have lim supε→0+ ε log P(Xn < ε) ≤ τn ,
where τn ↓ − 12 . Using the fact that P(X < ε) ≤ P(Xn < ε) it follows that
1
lim sup ε log P(X < ε) ≤ − .
2
ε→0+

32

KRZYSZTOF BURDZY AND TVRTKO TADIĆ

On the other hand for every δ > 0, one can find a bounded positive function gδ on
(0, ∞) such that
1
−1
P(Ax + B < ε) ≥ gδ (x)e−( 2 +δ)ε ,
1
−1
for all x > 0. Hence, P(AX + B < ε) ≥ E[gδ (X)]e−( 2 +δ)ε , and, therefore,


1
+δ .
lim inf
ε log P(X < ε) ≥ −
ε→0+
2
The claim follows by letting δ → 0+ .
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bojan Basrak and Hrvoje Planinić for the most useful
advice. The second author would like to thank the Department of Mathematics at the
University of Washington in Seattle, where the project took place, for the hospitality.
The second author is also grateful to the Microsoft Corporation for allowance on Azure
cloud service where he ran many simulations.
Research of the first author was supported in part by Simons Foundation Grant
506732. Research of the second author was supported in part by Croatian Science
Foundation grant 3526.
References
[1] Mariusz Bieniek, Krzysztof Burdzy, and Soumik Pal. Extinction of Fleming-Viot-type particle
systems with strong drift. Electron. J. Probab., 17:no. 11, 15, 2012.
[2] Peter J. Brockwell and Richard A. Davis. Time series: theory and methods. Springer Series in
Statistics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1991.
[3] Dariusz Buraczewski, Ewa Damek, and Thomas Mikosch. Stochastic models with power-law tails.
The equation X = AX + B. Springer Series in Operations Research and Financial Engineering.
Springer, 2016.
[4] Krzysztof Burdzy, Robert Holyst, and Peter March. A Fleming-Viot particle representation of the
Dirichlet Laplacian. Comm. Math. Phys., 214(3):679–703, 2000.
[5] Persi Diaconis and David Freedman. Iterated random functions. SIAM Rev., 41(1):45–76, 1999.
[6] Charles M. Goldie. Implicit renewal theory and tails of solutions of random equations. Ann. Appl.
Probab., 1(1):126–166, 1991.
[7] Peter D. Hoff. A first course in Bayesian statistical methods. Springer Texts in Statistics. Springer,
New York, 2009.
[8] Harry Kesten. Random difference equations and renewal theory for products of random matrices.
Acta Math., 131:207–248, 1973.
KB: Department of Mathematics, Box 354350, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA 98195, USA
E-mail address: burdzy@uw.edu
TT: Microsoft Corporation (City Center Plaza Bellevue), One Microsoft Way,
Redmond, WA 98052, USA
E-mail address: tvrtko@math.hr

