arXiv:1211.6693v3 [math.PR] 4 May 2016

The Annals of Applied Probability
2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, 722–759
DOI: 10.1214/15-AAP1101
c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2016

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION
PROBABILITY OF GAUSSIAN RANDOM FIELDS WITH
STATIONARY INCREMENTS1
By Dan Cheng and Yimin Xiao
North Carolina State University and Michigan State University
Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random field
with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. For any compact rectangle
T ⊂ RN and u ∈ R, denote by Au = {t ∈ T : X(t) ≥ u} the excursion
set. Under X(·) ∈ C 2 (RN ) and certain regularity conditions, the mean
Euler characteristic of Au , denoted by E{ϕ(Au )}, is derived. By applying the Rice method, it is shown that, as u → ∞, the excursion
probability P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} can be approximated by E{ϕ(Au )}
such that the error is exponentially smaller than E{ϕ(Au )}. This
verifies the expected Euler characteristic heuristic for a large class of
Gaussian random fields with stationary increments.

1. Introduction. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ T } be a real-valued Gaussian random field on probability space (Ω, F, P), where T is the parameter set. The
study of the excursion probability P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} is a classical but
very important problem in probability theory and has many applications
in statistics and related areas. Many authors have developed various methods for precise approximations of P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u}. These include the
double sum method [Piterbarg (1996a)], the tube method [Sun (1993)], the
Euler characteristic method [Adler (2000), Taylor and Adler (2003), Taylor,
Takemura and Adler (2005), Adler and Taylor (2007)] and the Rice method
[Azaı̈s, Bardet and Wschebor (2002), Azaı̈s and Delmas (2002), Azaı̈s and
Wschebor (2005, 2008, 2009)].
For a centered, unit-variance smooth Gaussian random field X = {X(t), t ∈
T } parameterized on a manifold T , Adler and Taylor [(2007), Theorem 14.3.3]
proved, under certain conditions on the regularity of X and topology of T ,
Received November 2012; revised December 2014.
Supported in part by NSF Grants DMS-10-06903, DMS-13-07470 and DMS-13-09856.
AMS 2000 subject classifications. 60G15, 60G60, 60G70.
Key words and phrases. Gaussian random fields with stationary increments, excursion
probability, excursion set, Euler characteristic, super-exponentially small.
1

This is an electronic reprint of the original article published by the
Institute of Mathematical Statistics in The Annals of Applied Probability,
2016, Vol. 26, No. 2, 722–759. This reprint differs from the original in pagination
and typographic detail.
1

2

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

the following approximation:
n
o
2
(1.1)
P sup X(t) ≥ u = E{ϕ(Au )}(1 + o(e−αu ))
t∈T

as u → ∞,

where ϕ(Au ) is the Euler characteristic of excursion set Au = {t ∈ T : X(t) ≥
u} and α > 0 is a constant which relates to the curvature of the boundary of
T and the second-order partial derivatives of X. This verifies the “Expected
Euler Characteristic Heuristic” for unit-variance smooth Gaussian random
fields. We refer to Takemura and Kuriki (2002), Taylor and Adler (2003)
and Taylor, Takemura and Adler (2005) for similar results in special cases.
It should be mentioned that Taylor, Takemura and Adler (2005) were able
to provide an explicit form of α in (1.1).
The approximation (1.1) is remarkable and very accurate, since E{ϕ(Au )}
is computable and the error is exponentially smaller than this principal term.
It has been applied for P -value approximation in many statistical applications to brain imaging, cosmology and environmental sciences. We refer to
Adler and Taylor (2007) and its forthcoming companion Adler, Taylor and
Worsley (2012) for further information. However, the above requirement of
“constant variance” on the Gaussian random fields is too restrictive for many
applications and excludes some important Gaussian random fields such as
those with stationary increments (see Section 2 below), or more generally,
Gaussian random intrinsic functions [Matheron (1973), Stein (1999, 2013)].
If the constant variance condition on X is not satisfied, then several important properties [e.g., X(t) and its gradient ∇X(t) are independent for every
t] are not available and the formulas for computing E{ϕ(Au )} [cf. Theorems
12.4.1 and 12.4.2 in Adler and Taylor (2007)] cannot be applied. Little had
been known on whether the approximation (1.1) still holds. The only exception is Azaı̈s and Wschebor [(2008), Theorem 5], where they proved (1.1)
for a centered smooth Gaussian random field X whose maximum variance
is attained in the interior of T .
In this paper, let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a centered real-valued Gaussian
random field with stationary increments and X(0) = 0, and let T ⊂ RN be a
rectangle. Our objectives are to compute the expected Euler characteristic
E{ϕ(Au )} and to show that it can be applied to give an accurate approximation for the excursion probability P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u}. In particular, we
prove that (1.1) holds for a large class of smooth Gaussian random fields
with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. In this generality, our main results
in Sections 3 and 4 are new even for the case of N = 1.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we provide some preliminaries on Gaussian random fields with stationary increments and prove
some basic lemmas. These are derived from the spectral representation of
the random fields and will be useful for proving the main results in Sections 3
and 4.

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY

3

In Section 3, we compute the mean Euler characteristic E{ϕ(Au )} by
applying the Kac–Rice metatheorem in Adler and Taylor [(2007), Theorem 11.2.1] [see also Adler and Taylor (2011), Theorem 4.1.1]. The computation of E{ϕ(Au )} involves the conditional expectation of the determinant
of the Hessian ∇2 X(t) given X(t) and ∇X(t), which is more complicated
for random fields with nonconstant variance function. For Gaussian random
fields with stationary increments, we are able to make use of the properties
of ∇X and ∇2 X (e.g., their stationarity) to provide an explicit formula in
Theorem 3.2 for E{ϕ(Au )}, using only derivatives of up to second order of
the covariance function.
Section 4 is the core part of this paper. Theorems 4.6 and 4.8 provide
approximations to the excursion probability which are analogous to (1.1)
for Gaussian random fields with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. Since
these random fields do not have constant variance, it is not clear if the original method for proving Theorem 14.3.3 in Adler and Taylor (2007) is still
applicable. Instead, our argument is based on the Rice method in Azaı̈s and
Delmas (2002) [see also Adler and Taylor (2007), pages 96–99]. More specifically, we decompose the rectangle T into several faces of lower dimensions
and then apply the idea of Piterbarg (1996b) and the Bonferroni inequality
to derive upper and lower bounds for P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} in terms of the
number of extended outward maxima [see (4.1), (4.2)] and local maxima [see
(4.3)], respectively. The main idea is to show that, in both cases, the upper bound makes the major contribution for estimating P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u}
and the last two terms in the lower bounds in (4.2) and (4.3) are superexponentially small. Under a mild technical condition on the variogram of
X, we apply (4.3) to obtain in Theorem 4.6 an expansion of the excursion
probability which is, in spirit, similar to the case of stationary Gaussian
fields [cf. (14.0.3) in Adler and Taylor (2007)]. Theorem 4.8 establishes a
general approximation to P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} in terms of E{ϕ(Au )}, which
verifies the “Expected Euler Characteristic Heuristic” for smooth Gaussian
random fields with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. For the purpose of
comparison, we mention that, if Z = {Z(t), t ∈ RN } is a real-valued, centered stationary Gaussian random field, then the random field X defined by
X(t) = Z(t) − Z(0) has stationary increments with X(0) = 0. Consequently,
Theorems 4.6 and 4.8 provide approximations to the excursion probability
P{supt∈T Z(t) − Z(0) ≥ u}.
Section 5 provides further remarks on the main results and some examples
where significant simplifications can be made. In Remarks 5.3 and 5.5, we
show that if the variance function of the random field attains its maximum at
a unique point, then one can apply the Laplace method to derive a first-order
approximation for the excursion probability explicitly. Finally, the Appendix
contains proofs of some auxiliary lemmas.

4

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

2. Gaussian fields with stationary increments.
2.1. Spectral representation. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a real-valued
centered Gaussian random field with stationary increments. That is, for
d
d
any h ∈ RN , {X(t + h) − X(h), t ∈ RN } = {X(t) − X(0), t ∈ RN }, where =
means equality in finite dimensional distributions. We assume that X has
continuous covariance function C(t, s) = E{X(t)X(s)}. Then it is known [cf.
Yaglom (1957)] that
(2.1)

C(t, s) − C(t, 0) − C(0, s) + C(0, 0)
Z
(eiht,λi − 1)(e−ihs,λi − 1)F (dλ) + ht, Θsi,
=
RN

where hx, yi is the ordinary inner product in RN , Θ is an N × N nonnegative
definite matrix and F is a nonnegative symmetric measure on RN \{0} which
satisfies
Z
kλk2
(2.2)
F (dλ) < ∞.
2
RN 1 + kλk
Similar to stationary random fields, the measure F and its density (if it exists) f (λ) are called the spectral measure and spectral density of X, respectively. It is known that many probabilistic, analytic and geometric properties
of {X(t), t ∈ RN } can be described in terms of its spectral measure F and,
on the other hand, various interesting Gaussian random fields can be constructed by choosing their spectral measures appropriately. See Xiao (2009),
Xue and Xiao (2011) and the references therein for more information.
By (2.1), we see that X has the following stochastic integral representation:
Z
d
(2.3)
(eiht,λi − 1)W (dλ) + hY, ti,
X(t) − X(0) =
RN

where Y is an N -dimensional Gaussian random vector and W is a complexvalued Gaussian random measure (independent of Y) with F as its control
measure. Note that in (2.3) there is no restriction on X(0) other than that
all joint distributions of {X(t), t ∈ RN } are Gaussian.
For simplicity, we assume throughout this paper that Y = 0. It follows
from (2.1) or (2.3) that the variogram ν of X is given by
Z
2
(2.4)
(1 − coshh, λi)F (dλ).
ν(h) := E(X(t + h) − X(t)) = 2
RN

Mean-square directional derivatives and sample path differentiability of
Gaussian random fields have been well studied. See, for example, Adler
(1981), Adler and Taylor (2007), Potthoff (2010), Xue and Xiao (2011).

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY

5

In particular, general sufficient conditions for a Gaussian random field to
have a modification whose sample functions are in C k (RN ) are given by
Adler and Taylor (2007). For a Gaussian random field X = {X(t), t ∈ RN }
with stationary increments, Xue and Xiao (2011) provided conditions for its
sample path differentiability in terms of the spectral density function f (λ).
A similar argument can be applied to give the following spectral condition
for the sample functions of X to be in C k (RN ), whose proof is given in
Cheng (2013) and is omitted here.
Proposition 2.1. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a real-valued centered
Gaussian random field with stationary increments and let ki (1 ≤ i ≤ N )
be nonnegative integers. If there is a constant ε > 0 such that
Z
N
Y
(2.5)
|λi |2ki +ε F (dλ) < ∞,
{kλk≥1} i=1

e
e such that the partial derivative k∂ X(t)
then X has a modification X
is
k
1
∂t1 ···∂tNN
P
continuous on RN almost surely, where k = N
i=1 ki . Moreover, for any comN
′
pact rectangle T ⊂ R and any ε ∈ (0, ε ∧ 1), there exists a constant c1 such
that

2
e
e
∂ k X(t)
∂ k X(s)
′
(2.6) E
∀t, s ∈ T.
≤ c1 kt − skε
− k
kN
kN
k1
1
∂t1 · · · ∂tN
∂s1 · · · ∂sN
k

For notational simplicity, we will not distinguish X from its modification
e
X. As a consequence of Proposition 2.1, we see that, if X = {X(t), t ∈ RN }
has a spectral density f (λ) which satisfies


1
f (λ) = O
(2.7)
as kλk → ∞,
kλkN +2k+H

for some integer k ≥ 1 and H ∈ (0, 1), then the sample functions of X are in
C k (RN ) a.s. Further examples of anisotropic Gaussian random fields which
may have different smoothness along different directions can be found in
Xue and Xiao (2011).
∂ 2 X(t)
When X(·) ∈ C 2 (RN ) almost surely, we write ∂X(t)
∂ti = Xi (t) and ∂ti ∂tj =
Xij (t). We will use the same notation for the partial derivatives of deterministic functions such as ν(·) in Theorem 4.6.
Denote by ∇X(t) and ∇2 X(t) the column vector (X1 (t), . . . , XN (t))T and
the N × N matrix (Xij (t))i,j=1,...,N , respectively. It follows from (2.1) that
for every t ∈ RN ,
Z
∂ 2 C(t, s)
(2.8)
= E{Xi (t)Xj (t)}.
λi λj F (dλ) =
λij :=
∂ti ∂sj s=t
RN

6

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Let Λ = (λij )i,j=1,...,N , then (2.8) shows that Λ = Cov(∇X(t)) for all t. In
particular, the distribution of ∇X(t) is independent of t. Let
Z
λi λj cosht, λiF (dλ),
Λ(t) := (λij (t))i,j=1,...,N .
λij (t) :=
RN

Then we have

(2.9)

λij (t) − λij =
=

Z

RN

λi λj (cosht, λi − 1)F (dλ)

∂ 2 C(t, s)
∂si ∂sj

s=t

= E{(X(t) − X(0))Xij (t)},

or equivalently, Λ(t) − Λ = E{(X(t) − X(0))∇2 X(t)}.
In studies of a Gaussian random field X with stationary increments in
the literature, it is often assumed that X(0) = 0. In this case, Λ(t) − Λ =
E{X(t)∇2 X(t)}. With little loss of generality, we will follow this convention
by assuming X(0) = 0 in the rest of this paper. The general case can be
dealt with by first applying the result of this paper to the random field
{X(t) − X(0), t ∈ RN } and then taking into consideration of the available
information on X(0) [an interesting special case is when X(0) is independent
of {X(t) − X(0), t ∈ RN }].
Q
2.2. Hypotheses and some important properties. Let T = N
i=1 [ai , bi ] be
a compact rectangle in RN , where ai < bi for all 1 ≤ i ≤ N and 0 ∈
/ T (the
case of 0 ∈ T will be discussed in Remark 5.1). In addition to assuming that
the Gaussian random field X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } has stationary increments
and X(0) = 0, we will make use of the following conditions:
(H1) X(·) ∈ C 2 (T ) almost surely and its second derivatives satisfy the
uniform mean-square Hölder condition: there exist constants L > 0 and η ∈
(0, 1] such that
(2.10) E(Xij (t) − Xij (s))2 ≤ Lkt − sk2η

∀t, s ∈ T, i, j = 1, . . . , N.

(H2) For every t ∈ T , the matrix Λ − Λ(t) is nondegenerate.
(H3) For every pair (t, s) ∈ T 2 with t 6= s, the Gaussian random vector
(X(t), ∇X(t), Xij (t), X(s), ∇X(s), Xij (s), 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ N )
is nondegenerate.
(H3′ ) For every t ∈ T , (X(t), ∇X(t), Xij (t), 1 ≤ i ≤ j ≤ N ) is nondegenerate.
Clearly, by Proposition 2.1, condition (H1) is satisfied if (2.7) holds for
k = 2. Also note that (H3) implies (H3′ ). We shall use conditions (H1),

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY

7

(H2) and (H3) to prove Theorems 4.6 and 4.8 on the excursion probability.
Condition (H3′ ) will be used for computing E{ϕ(Au )} in Theorem 3.2.
We point out that the nondegeneracy conditions (H3) and (H3′ ) are standard for studying crossing problems when N = 1, excursion sets and excursion probabilities of smooth Gaussian random fields. In the case where
N = 1 and X is a stationary Gaussian process, Cramér and Leadbetter
[(1967), pages 203–204] showed that (H3′ ) is automatically satisfied if X
has second-order mean square derivatives and the spectral measure of X
is not purely discrete. See Exercises 3.4 and 3.5 in Azaı̈s and Wschebor
[(2009), page 87] for similar results. Notice that (H3) and (H3′ ) are equivalent to saying that the corresponding covariance matrices are nondegenerate
which, in turn, can be verified by establishing positive lower bounds for the
conditional variances. Thus, (H3) and (H3′ ) are related to the properties of
local nondeterminism [cf. Cuzick (1977), Xiao (2009)]. Hence, for a general
Gaussian random field X with stationary increments, it is possible to provide sufficient conditions in terms of the spectral measure F for (H3) and
(H3′ ) to hold. In order not to make this paper too lengthy, we do not give
details here.
The following lemma shows that for Gaussian fields with stationary increments and X(0) = 0, (H2) is equivalent to Λ − Λ(t) being positive definite.
Lemma 2.2. For every t ∈ RN , Λ − Λ(t) is nonnegative definite. Hence,
under (H2), Λ − Λ(t) is positive definite for every t ∈ T .
Proof. Let t ∈ RN be fixed. It follows from (2.9) that for any (a1 , . . . , aN ) ∈
\ {0},
!2
Z
N
N
X
X
ai λi (1 − cosht, λi)F (dλ).
(2.11)
ai aj (λij − λij (t)) =
RN

i,j=1

RN

i=1

P
2
N
Since ( N
i=1 ai λi ) (1 − cosht, λi) ≥ 0 for all λ ∈ R , (2.11) is always nonnegative, which implies that Λ − Λ(t) is nonnegative definite. If (H2) is satisfied,
then, for every t ∈ T , all the eigenvalues of Λ − Λ(t) are positive. This completes the proof. 

It follows from (2.11) that, if the spectral measure F is full [i.e., not
supported on any (N − 1)-dimensional hyperplane], then (H2) holds. Hence,
(H2) is in fact a mild condition for smooth Gaussian fields with stationary
increments.
Lemma 2.2 and the following two lemmas indicate some significant properties of Gaussian fields with stationary increments. They will play important
roles in later sections.

8

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Lemma 2.3. Let t ∈ RN be fixed. Then for all i, j, k, the random variables
Xi (t) and Xjk (t) are independent. Moreover, E{Xij (t)Xkl (t)} is symmetric
in i, j, k, l.
Proof. By (2.1), one can verify that for t, s ∈ RN ,
Z
∂ 3 C(t, s)
E{Xi (t)Xjk (s)} =
λi λj λk sinht − s, λiF (dλ).
=
∂ti ∂sj ∂sk
RN
Letting s = t we see that Xi (t) and Xjk (t) are independent. Similarly, we
have
Z
∂ 4 C(t, s)
E{Xij (t)Xkl (s)} =
λi λj λk λl cosht − s, λiF (dλ).
=
∂ti ∂tj ∂sk ∂sl
RN
This implies the second conclusion. 
The following lemma is a consequence of Lemma 2.3.
Lemma 2.4.
fixed t ∈ RN ,

Let A = (aij )1≤i,j≤N be a symmetric matrix. Then for any

St (i, j, k, l) = E{(A∇2 X(t)A)ij (A∇2 X(t)A)kl }
is a symmetric function of i, j, k, l.
3. The mean Euler characteristic.
Q
3.1. Related existing results and notation. The rectangle T = N
i=1 [ai , bi ]
can be decomposed into several faces of lower dimensions. We use the same
notation as in Adler and Taylor [(2007), page 134].
A face J of dimension k, is defined by fixing a subset σ(J) ⊂ {1, . . . , N }
of size k [if k = 0, we have σ(J) = ∅ by convention] and a subset ε(J) =
{εj , j ∈
/ σ(J)} ⊂ {0, 1}N −k of size N − k, so that
J = {t = (t1 , . . . , tN ) ∈ T : aj < tj < bj ifj ∈ σ(J),
tj = (1 − εj )aj + εj bj ifj ∈
/ σ(J)}.
Denote by ∂k T the collection of all k-dimensional faces in T , then the in◦

terior S
of T is given by T = ∂N T and the boundary of T is given by ∂T =
S
N −1
2
k=0
J∈∂k T J . For J ∈ ∂k T , denote by ∇X|J (t) and ∇ X|J (t) the column
vector (Xi1 (t), . . . , Xik (t))Ti1 ,...,ik ∈σ(J) and the k × k matrix (Xmn (t))m,n∈σ(J) ,
respectively.

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY

9

If X(·) ∈ C 2 (RN ) and it is a Morse function a.s. [cf. Definition 9.3.1 in
Adler and Taylor (2007)], then according to Corollary 9.3.5 or pages 211–
212 in Adler and Taylor (2007), the Euler characteristic of the excursion set
Au = {t ∈ T : X(t) ≥ u} is given by
(3.1)

ϕ(Au ) =

N X
X

k=0 J∈∂k T

k
X
(−1)i µi (J)
(−1)
k

i=0

with
(3.2)

µi (J) := #{t ∈ J : X(t) ≥ u, ∇X|J (t) = 0, index(∇2 X|J (t)) = i,
ε∗j Xj (t) ≥ 0 for all j ∈
/ σ(J)},

where ε∗j = 2εj − 1 and the index of a matrix is defined as the number of its
negative eigenvalues. We also define
(3.3) µ
ei (J) := #{t ∈ J : X(t) ≥ u, ∇X|J (t) = 0, index(∇2 X|J (t)) = i}.

It follows from (2.4) that ν(t) = Var(X(t)). Let σT2 = supt∈T ν(t) be the
maximum variance. For any t ∈ T and J ∈ ∂k T , where k ≥ 1, let
ΛJ = (λij )i,j∈σ(J) = Cov(∇X|J (t)),
ΛJ (t) = (λij (t))i,j∈σ(J) ,

(3.4)

2
θJ,t
= Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t)),

γt2 = Var(X(t)|∇X(t)),

{J1 , . . . , JN −k } = {1, . . . , N } \ σ(J),

E(J) = {(tJ1 , . . . , tJN−k ) ∈ RN −k : tj ε∗j ≥ 0, j = J1 , . . . , JN −k }.

2 ≥ γ 2 for all t ∈ T and θ 2 = γ 2 if J = ∂ T . If J = {τ } ∈ ∂ T is
Note that θJ,t
N
0
t
t
J,t
2 as ν(t) by convention.
a vertex, then ∇X|J (t) is not defined and we set θJ,t
Moreover, if J = {τ } ∈ ∂0 T , then E({τ }) is a quadrant of RN decided by
2 as θ 2 for
the corresponding ε({τ }) ∈ {0, 1}N . In the sequel, we will write θJ,t
t
simplicity of notation. This will not cause any confusion because θt2 always
appears together with t ∈ J .
For t ∈ T , let Cj (t) be the (1, j + 1) entry of (Cov(X(t), ∇X(t)))−1 , that
is,

Cj (t) = M1,j+1 (t)/ detCov(X(t), ∇X(t)),
where M1,j+1 (t) is the cofactor of the (1, j + 1) entry, E{X(t)Xj (t)}, in
the covariance matrix Cov(X(t), ∇X(t)). If {X(t), t ∈ RN } is replaced by a
Gaussian field {Z(t), t ∈ RN } with constant variance, the independence of
Z(t) and ∇Z(t) for each t implies that M1,j+1 (t) and hence Cj (t) is zero for
all j ≥ 1.

10

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Denote by Hk (x) the Hermite polynomial of order k, that is, Hk (x) =
2
dk
−x2 /2 ). Then it can be verified directly [cf. Adler and Taylor
(−1)k ex /2 dx
k (e
(2007), page 289] that
Z ∞
2
2
(3.5)
Hk (x)e−x /2 dx = Hk−1 (u)e−u /2 ,
u

where u > 0 and k ≥ 1. For a matrix A, let |A| denote its determinant. Let
R∞
2
R+ = [0, ∞), R− = (−∞, 0] and let Ψ(u) = (2π)−1/2 u e−x /2 dx.

3.2. Computing the mean Euler characteristic. The following lemma is
an extension of Lemma 11.7.1 in Adler and Taylor (2007). It provides a
key step for computing the mean Euler characteristic in Theorem 3.2 below, and has a close connection with Theorem 4.6. It follows from (3.6)
P
that (−1)k E{ ki=0 (−1)i µ
ei (J)} is always positive. This fact will be used
to approximate the expected number of local maxima above level u; see
Lemma 4.1.
Lemma 3.1. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random
field with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. Suppose conditions (H1),
(H2) and (H3′ ) hold. Then for each J ∈ ∂k T with k ≥ 1,
)
( k
X
(−1)i µ
ei (J)
E
i=0

(3.6)

(−1)k
=
(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2

Z

J

 
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
u −u2 /(2θt2 )
dt.
Hk−1
e
k
θt
θt

Proof. Let Di be the collection of all k × k matrices with index i. Recall
the definition of µ
ei (J) in (3.3), and thanks to (H1) and (H3′ ), we can apply
the Kac–Rice metatheorem [cf. Theorem 11.2.1 or Corollary 11.2.2 in Adler
and Taylor (2007)] to get that the left-hand side of (3.6) becomes
Z
p∇X|J (t) (0) dt
(3.7)

J

k
X
(−1)i E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)|1{∇2 X|J (t)∈Di } 1{X(t)≥u} |∇X|J (t) = 0}.
×
i=0

Note that on the set Di , the matrix ∇2 X|J (t) has i negative eigenvalues,
S
which implies (−1)i | det ∇2 X|J (t)| = det ∇2 X|J (t). Also, ki=0 {∇2 X|J (t) ∈
Di } = Ω a.s., hence (3.7) equals
Z
p∇X|J (t) (0) dt E{det ∇2 X|J (t)1{X(t)≥u} |∇X|J (t) = 0}
J

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 11

(3.8)

=

Z

dt

Z

∞

u

J

dx

e−x

2 /(2θ 2 )
t

(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2 θt

× E{det ∇2 X|J (t)|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}.

Now we turn to computing E{det ∇2 X|J (t)|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0} in
(3.8). By Lemma 2.2, under (H2), Λ − Λ(t), and hence ΛJ − ΛJ (t) are positive definite for every t ∈ J . Thus, there exists a k × k positive definite
matrix Qt such that
(3.9)

Qt (ΛJ − ΛJ (t))Qt = Ik ,

where Ik is the k × k identity matrix. It follows from (2.9) that ΛJ (t) − ΛJ =
E{X(t)∇2 X|J (t)}. Hence,
E{X(t)(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )ij } = −(Qt (ΛJ − ΛJ (t))Qt )ij = −δij ,

where δij is the Kronecker delta function. We write
(3.10)

E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0} = E{det ∆(t, x)},

where ∆(t, x) = (∆ij (t, x))i,j∈σ(J) with all elements ∆ij (t, x) being Gaussian
variables. To study ∆(t, x), we only need to find the mean and covariance
of ∆ij (t, x). Note that ∇X(t) and ∇2 X(t) are independent by Lemma 2.3,
thus
E{∆ij (t, x)} = E{(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )ij |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}
= (E{X(t)(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )ij }, 0, . . . , 0)
(3.11)

× (Cov(X(t), ∇X|J (t)))−1 (x, 0, . . . , 0)T

= (−δij , 0, . . . , 0)(Cov(X(t), ∇X|J (t)))−1 (x, 0, . . . , 0)T
x
= − 2 δij ,
θt
where the last equality comes from the fact that the (1, 1) entry of (Cov(X(t),
∇X|J (t)))−1 is detCov(∇X|J (t))/ detCov(X(t), ∇X|J (t)) = 1/θt2 . For the covariance, we have
E{(∆ij (t, x) − E{∆ij (t, x)})(∆kl (t, x) − E{∆kl (t, x)})}
= E{(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )ij (Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )kl }
− (E{X(t)(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )ij }, 0, . . . , 0)
× (Cov(X(t), ∇X|J (t)))−1 (E{X(t)(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )kl }, 0, . . . , 0)T

= St (i, j, k, l) − (−δij , 0, . . . , 0)(Cov(X(t), ∇X|J (t)))−1 (−δkl , 0, . . . , 0)T
= St (i, j, k, l) −

δij δkl
,
θt2

12

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

where St is a symmetric function of i, j, k, l by Lemma 2.4 with A replaced
by Qt . Therefore, (3.10) becomes


1
2
det(θ
Q
(∇
X
(t))Q
)
X(t)
=
x,
∇X
(t)
=
0
E k
t t
t
|J
|J
θt

 
1
x
e
= k E det ∆(t) − Ik
,
θt
θt
e
e ij (t))i,j∈σ(J) and all entries ∆
e ij (t) are Gaussian variables
where ∆(t)
= (∆
satisfying
e ij (t)} = 0,
e ij (t)∆
e kl (t)} = θt2 St (i, j, k, l) − δij δkl .
E{∆
E{∆

By Corollary 11.6.3 in Adler and Taylor (2007), (3.10) is equal to (−1)k θt−k ×
Hk (x/θt ), hence
E{det ∇2 X|J (t)|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}

2
−1
= E{det(Q−1
t Qt ∇ X|J (t)Qt Qt )|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}

= |ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}
 
(−1)k
x
=
.
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|Hk
k
θt
θt
Plugging this into (3.8) and applying (3.5), we obtain the desired result. 
The following is the main theorem of this section, which is an extension of
Theorem 11.7.2 of Adler and Taylor (2007) to Gaussian random fields with
stationary increments. Notice that in (3.12), for every {t} ∈ ∂0 T , ∇X(t) ∈
E({t}) specifies the signs of the partial derivatives Xj (t) (j = 1, . . . , N ) and,
for J ∈ ∂k T , the set {J1 , . . . , JN −k } is defined in (3.4).
Theorem 3.2. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random
field with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. Suppose conditions (H1),
(H2) and (H3′ ) hold. Then
E{ϕ(Au )} =

X

{t}∈∂0 T

Z

∞

Z

Z

1

(2π)k/2 |ΛJ |1/2
k=1 J∈∂k T

|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
γtk
E(J)
u
J


x
× Hk
+ γt CJ1 (t)yJ1 + · · · + γt CJN−k (t)yJN−k
γt
×

(3.12)

Z

P(X(t) ≥ u, ∇X(t) ∈ E({t})) +

N X
X

dt

dx

× pX(t),XJ1 (t),...,XJ

···

N−k

dyJ1 · · · dyJN−k

(t) (x, yJ1 , . . . , yJN−k |∇X|J (t) = 0).

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 13

Remark 3.3. If Z = {Z(t), t ∈ RN } is a smooth centered stationary
Gaussian random field, then the mean Euler characteristic of the excursion
set {t ∈ T : Z(t) ≥ u} is given by Theorem 11.7.2 in Adler and Taylor (2007).
Applying Theorem 3.2 to X(t) = Z(t) − Z(0), (3.12) computes the mean
Euler characteristic of Au = {t ∈ T : Z(t) − Z(0) ≥ u}.
Proof of Theorem 3.2. According to Corollary 11.3.2 in Adler and
Taylor (2007), (H1) and (H3′ ) imply that X is a Morse function a.s. It
follows from (3.1) that
( k
)
N X
X
X
k
i
(3.13)
(−1) E
(−1) µi (J) .
E{ϕ(Au )} =
i=0

k=0 J∈∂k T

If J ∈ ∂0 T , say J = {t}, it turns out that E{µ0 (J)} = P(X(t) ≥ u, ∇X(t) ∈
E({t})). If J ∈ ∂k T with k ≥ 1, we apply the Kac–Rice metatheorem in
Adler and Taylor (2007) to obtain that the expectation on the right-hand
side of (3.13) becomes
Z
p∇X|J (t) (0) dt
J

×

k
X
i=0

(3.14) =

(−1)i E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)|1{∇2 X|J (t)∈Di } 1{(XJ1 (t),...,XJ

1
k/2
(2π) |ΛJ |1/2

Z

dt
J

Z

∞

u

dx

Z

···

Z

N−k

(t))∈E(J)}

× 1{X(t)≥u} |∇X|J (t) = 0}

E(J)

dyJ1 · · · dyJN−k

× E{det ∇2 X|J (t)|X(t) = x, XJ1 (t) = yJ1 , . . . , XJN−k (t) = yJN−k ,
∇X|J (t) = 0}
× pX(t),XJ1 (t),...,XJ

N−k

(t) (x, yJ1 , . . . , yJN−k |∇X|J (t) = 0).

For fixed t, let Qt be the positive definite matrix in (3.9). Then, similar to
the proof in Lemma 3.1, we can write
E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )|X(t) = x, XJ1 (t) = yJ1 , . . . , XJN−k = yJN−k ,
∇X|J (t) = 0}
as E{det ∆(t, x)}, where ∆(t, x) is a matrix consisting of Gaussian entries
∆ij (t, x) with mean
E{(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )ij |X(t) = x, XJ1 (t) = yJ1 , . . . , XJN−k = yJN−k ,
∇X|J (t) = 0}

14

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

(3.15)

= (−δij , 0, . . . , 0)(Cov(X(t), XJ1 (t), . . . , XJN−k (t), ∇X|J (t)))−1
× (x, yJ1 , . . . , yJN−k , 0, . . . , 0)T
=−

δij
(x + γt2 CJ1 (t)yJ1 + · · · + γt2 CJN−k (t)yJN−k ),
γt2

and covariance
E{(∆ij (t, x) − E{∆ij (t, x)})(∆kl (t, x) − E{∆kl (t, x)})}
= St (i, j, k, l) −

δij δkl
.
γt2

Following the same procedure in the proof of Lemma 3.1, we obtain that the
last conditional expectation in (3.14) is equal to

(3.16)

(−1)k |ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
γtk


x
+ γt CJ1 (t)yJ1 + · · · + γt CJN−k (t)yJN−k .
× Hk
γt

Plugging this into (3.14) and (3.13) yields the desired result. 

Remark 3.4. Usually, for a nonstationary (including constant-variance)
Gaussian field X on RN , its mean Euler characteristic involves at least
the third-order derivatives of the covariance function. For Gaussian random
fields with stationary increments, as shown in Lemma 2.3, E{Xij (t)Xk (t)} =
0 and E{Xij (t)Xkl (t)} is symmetric in i, j, k, l. Hence, the mean Euler characteristic becomes simpler, containing only up to second-order derivatives
of the covariance function. This can also be seen from the spectral representation (2.3) which implies that ∇X and ∇2 X are stationary. In various
practical applications, (3.12) can be simplified with only an exponentially
smaller difference. See the discussions in Section 5.
4. Excursion probability.
4.1.
As in Section 3.1, we decompose T into its faces as
S Preliminaries.
S
T= N
J
.
For
k ≥ 1 and any J ∈ ∂k T , define the number of exk=0 J∈∂k T
tended outward maxima above level u as
MuE (J) := #{t ∈ J : X(t) ≥ u, ∇X|J (t) = 0, index(∇2 X|J (t)) = k,

ε∗j Xj (t) ≥ 0 for allj ∈
/ σ(J)}.

In fact, MuE (J) is the same as µk (J) defined in (3.2) with i = k. For k = 0
and any {t} ∈ ∂0 T , let
MuE ({t}) := 1{X(t)≥u,∇X(t)∈E({t})} = 1{X(t)≥u,ε∗j Xj (t)≥0,∀j=1,...,N } .

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 15

One can show easily that, under conditions (H1) and (H3′ ),
N
n
o [
[
{MuE (J) ≥ 1}
sup X(t) ≥ u =
t∈T

a.s.

k=0 J∈∂k T

It follows that
N X
N X
n
o X
X
P{MuE (J) ≥ 1} ≤
(4.1) P sup X(t) ≥ u ≤
E{MuE (J)}.
t∈T

k=0 J∈∂k T

k=0 J∈∂k T

On the other hand, by the Bonferroni inequality,
N X
n
o X
X
P{MuE (J) ≥ 1}−
P{MuE (J) ≥ 1, MuE (J ′ ) ≥ 1}.
P sup X(t) ≥ u ≥
t∈T

J6=J ′

k=0 J∈∂k T

Note that [cf. Piterbarg (1996b)]
E{MuE (J)} − P{MuE (J) ≥ 1} ≤ 21 E{MuE (J)(MuE (J) − 1)},
together with the obvious bound P{MuE (J) ≥ 1, MuE (J ′ ) ≥ 1} ≤ E{MuE (J) ×
MuE (J ′ )}, we obtain the following lower bound for the excursion probability

N X 
n
o X
1
E
E
E
P sup X(t) ≥ u ≥
E{Mu (J)} − E{Mu (J)(Mu (J) − 1)}
2
t∈T
k=0 J∈∂k T
(4.2)
X
−
E{MuE (J)MuE (J ′ )}.
J6=J ′

Define the number of local maxima above level u as
Mu (J) := #{t ∈ J : X(t) ≥ u, ∇X|J (t) = 0, index(∇2 X|J (t)) = k}.
ek (J) defined
Then obviously Mu (J) ≥ MuE (J) and Mu (J) is the same as µ
in (3.3) with i = k. It follows similarly that
N X
X

k=0 J∈∂k T

(4.3)

n
o
E{Mu (J)} ≥ P sup X(t) ≥ u
t∈T

≥

N X 
X
k=0 J∈∂k T

−

X

1
E{Mu (J)} − E{Mu (J)(Mu (J) − 1)}
2



E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )}.

J6=J ′

We will use (4.1) and (4.2) to estimate the excursion probability for the
general case in Theorem 4.8. Inequalities in (4.3) provide another method

16

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

to approximate the excursion probability in some special cases; see Theorem 4.6. The advantage of (4.3) is that the principal term induced by
PN P
k=0
J∈∂k T E{Mu (J)} is much easier to compute compared with the one
P
P
E
induced by N
k=0
J∈∂k T E{Mu (J)}.

4.2. Estimating the moments: Major terms and error terms. The following two lemmas provide the estimations for the principal terms in approximating the excursion probability.
Lemma 4.1. Let X be a Gaussian field as in Theorem 3.2. Then for
each J ∈ ∂k T with k ≥ 1, there exists some constant α > 0 such that
E{Mu (J)}
=

(4.4)

1
(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2
×

Z

J

 
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
u −u2 /(2θt2 )
2
dt(1 + o(e−αu )).
Hk−1
e
k
θt
θt

Proof. Following the notation in the proof of Lemma 3.1, we obtain
similarly that
E{Mu (J)}
Z
= p∇X|J (t) (0) dtE{|det ∇2 X|J (t)|1{∇2 X|J (t)∈Dk } 1{X(t)≥u} |∇X|J (t) = 0}
J

(4.5)

=

Z

J

dt

Z

∞

u

2

2

(−1)k e−x /(2θt )
dx
(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2 θt

× E{det ∇2 X|J (t)1{∇2 X|J (t)∈Dk } |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}.

Recall that Qt is the k × k positive definite matrix in (3.9). We write (3.11)
as
x
E{Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0} = − 2 Ik .
θt
Make change of variables
V (t) = Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt +

x
Ik .
θt2

Then (V (t)|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0) is a Gaussian matrix whose mean is 0
and covariance is the same as that of (Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) =
0). Write V (t) = (Vij (t))1≤i,j≤k and denote the density of Gaussian vectors

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 17

((Vij (t))1≤i≤j≤k |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0) by ht (v), where v = (vij )1≤i≤j≤k ∈
Rk(k+1)/2 . Then
E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )1{∇2 X|J (t)∈Dk } |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}
(4.6)

= E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )1{Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt ∈Dk } |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}


Z
x
det (vij ) − 2 Ik ht (v) dv,
=
θt
{v : (vij )−(x/θt2 )Ik ∈Dk }

where (vij ) is the abbreviation for the matrix (vij )1≤i,j≤k . Since {θt2 : t ∈ T }
is bounded, there exists a constant c > 0 such that
!1/2
k
X
x
x
2
(vij ) − 2 Ik ∈ Dk
< .
vij
∀k(vij )k :=
c
θt
i,j=1

Thus, we can write (4.6) as


Z
x
det (vij ) − 2 Ik ht (v) dv
θt
Rk(k+1)/2


Z
x
det (vij ) − 2 Ik ht (v) dv
−
(4.7)
θt
/ k}
{v : (vij )−(x/θt2 )Ik ∈D

= E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )|X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0} + Z(t, x),

where Z(t, x) is the second integral in the first line of (4.7) and it satisfies


Z
x
det (vij ) − 2 Ik ht (v) dv.
|Z(t, x)| ≤
θt
k(vij )k≥x/c

Denote by G(t) the covariance matrix of ((Vij (t))1≤i≤j≤k |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) =
0). Then by Lemma A.1 in the Appendix, the eigenvalues of G(t) and those
of (G(t))−1 are bounded for all t ∈ T . It follows that there exists some con2
′
2
stant α′ > 0 such that ht (v) = o(e−α k(vij )k ) and hence |Z(t, x)| = o(e−αx )
for some constant α > 0 uniformly for all t ∈ T . Combining this with (4.5),
(4.6), (4.7) and the proof of Lemma 3.1 yields (4.4). 
Lemma 4.2. Let X be a Gaussian field as in Theorem 3.2. Then for
each J ∈ ∂k T with k ≥ 1, there exists some constant α > 0 such that
E{MuE (J)}

Z
Z
Z ∞
Z
1
dyJ1 · · · dyJN−k
dx · · ·
dt
=
(2π)k/2 |ΛJ |1/2 J
E(J)
u
(4.8)


|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
x
×
+ γt CJ1 (t)yJ1 + · · · + γt CJN−k (t)yJN−k
Hk
γt
γtk
× pX(t),XJ1 (t),...,XJ

2
(x, yJ1 , . . . , yJN−k |∇X|J (t) = 0)(1 + o(e−αu )).
(t)
N−k

18

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Proof. Similar to the proof in Theorem 3.2, we see that E{MuE (J)} is
equal to
Z
Z
Z ∞
Z
(−1)k |ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
dyJ1 · · · dyJN−k
dx
·
·
·
dt
(2π)k/2 |ΛJ |1/2
E(J)
u
J
× E{det(Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt )1{Qt ∇2 X|J (t)Qt ∈Dk } |

X(t) = x, XJ1 (t) = yJ1 , . . . , XJN−k (t) = yJN−k , ∇X|J (t) = 0}
× pX(t),XJ1 (t),...,XJ
(t) (x, yJ1 , . . . , yJN−k |∇X|J (t) = 0)
N−k
Z
Z ∞
(−1)k |ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
:=
dxK(t, x),
dt
(2π)k/2 |ΛJ |1/2
J
u
where Qt is the positive definite matrix in (3.9). Then, by using a similar
argument as in the proof of Lemma 4.1 to estimate K(t, x), we obtain the
desired result. 
We call a function h(u) super-exponentially small [when compared with
P(supt∈T X(t) ≥ u)], if there exists a constant α > 0 such that h(u) =
2
2
2
o(e−αu −u /(2σT ) ) as u → ∞.
The following lemma is Lemma 4 in Piterbarg (1996b). It will be used to
show that the factorial moments of Mu (J) and MuE (J) are usually superexponentially small.
Lemma 4.3. Let {X(t) : t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian field satisfying
(H1) and (H3). Then for any ε > 0, there exists ε1 > 0 such that for any
J ∈ ∂k T and u large enough,
E{Mu (J)(Mu (J) − 1)} ≤ e−u

2 /(2β 2 +ε)
J

+ e−u

2 /(2σ 2 −ε )
1
J

,

where σJ2 = supt∈J Var(X(t)) and βJ2 = supt∈J supe∈Sk−1 Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t),
∇2 X|J (t)e). Here and in the sequel, Sk−1 is the unit sphere in Rk .
Corollary 4.4. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random field with stationary increments satisfying (H1), (H2) and (H3). Then
for all J ∈ ∂k T , E{Mu (J)(Mu (J) − 1)} and E{MuE (J)(MuE (J) − 1)} are
super-exponentially small.
Proof. Since MuE (J) ≤ Mu (J), we only need to show that E{Mu (J) ×
(Mu (J) − 1)} is super-exponentially small. If k = 0, then Mu (J) is either 0 or
1 and hence E{Mu (J)(Mu (J) − 1)} = 0. If k ≥ 1, then, thanks to Lemma 4.3,
it suffices to show that βJ2 is strictly less than σT2 .

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 19

Clearly, Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t), ∇2 X|J (t)e) ≤ σT2 for every e ∈ Sk−1 and t ∈ T .
On the other hand,
(4.9) Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t), ∇2 X|J (t)e) = σT2

=⇒

E{X(t)(∇2 X|J (t)e)} = 0.

Note that, by (2.9), the right-hand side of (4.9) is equivalent to (ΛJ (t) −
ΛJ )e = 0. However, by (H2), ΛJ (t) − ΛJ is negative definite, which implies
(ΛJ (t) − ΛJ )e 6= 0 for all e ∈ Sk−1 . Thus
Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t), ∇2 X|J (t)e) < σT2

for all e ∈ Sk−1 and t ∈ T . This and the continuity of Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t),
∇2 X|J (t)e) in (e, t) imply βJ2 < σT2 . 
The following lemma shows that the cross terms in (4.2) and (4.3) are
super-exponentially small if the two faces are not adjacent. For the case
when the faces are adjacent, the proof is more technical. See the proofs in
Theorems 4.6 and 4.8.
Lemma 4.5. Let X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random
field with stationary increments satisfying (H1) and (H3). Let J and J ′ be
two faces of T such that their distance is positive, that is, inf t∈J,s∈J ′ ks − tk >
δ0 for some δ0 > 0. Then E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} is super-exponentially small.
Proof. We first consider the case when dim(J) = k ≥ 1 and dim(J ′ ) =
≥ 1. By the Kac–Rice metatheorem for higher moments [the proof is the
same as that of Theorem 11.5.1 in Adler and Taylor (2007)],
k′

E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )}
Z
Z
dsE{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)|
dt
=
J′

J

× 1{X(t)≥u,X(s)≥u}

× 1{∇2 X|J (t)∈Dk ,∇2 X|J ′ (s)∈Dk′ } |
X(t) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
(4.10)
≤

Z

J

dt

Z

J′

× pX(t),X(s),∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, y, 0, 0)
Z ∞
Z ∞
dy
dx
ds
u

u

2

E{|det ∇ X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||

× X(t) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}pX(t),X(s) (x, y)
×p∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (0, 0|X(t) = x, X(s) = y).

20

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Note that the following two inequalities hold: For constants ai and bj ,
!
k′
k
k′
k
X
X
Y
Y
1
k+k ′
k+k ′
;
|bj |
+
|ai |
|bj | ≤
|ai |
k + k′
i=1

i=1

j=1

j=1

and for any Gaussian variable ξ and positive integer l,
E|ξ|l ≤ E(|Eξ| + |ξ − Eξ|)l ≤ 2l (|Eξ|l + E|ξ − Eξ|l ) = 2l (|Eξ|l + Kl (Var(ξ))l/2 ),
where the constant Kl depends only on l. It follows from these two inequalities that there exist some positive constants C1 and N1 such that for large
x and y,
sup E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J (t) = 0,

t∈J,s∈J ′

(4.11)

∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
≤ C 1 x N1 y N1 .

Also, there exists a positive constant C2 such that
sup p∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (0, 0|X(t) = x, X(s) = y)

t∈J,s∈J ′

′

≤ sup (2π)−(k+k )/2
(4.12)

t∈J,s∈J ′

× [detCov(∇X|J (t), ∇X|J ′ (s)|X(t) = x, X(s) = y)]−1/2
≤ C2 .

Let ρ(δ0 ) = supks−tk>δ0

|E{X(t)X(s)}|
√
ν(t)ν(s)

which is strictly less than 1 due to (H3),

then ∀ε > 0, there exists a positive constant C3 such that for all t ∈ J , s ∈ J ′
and u large enough,
Z ∞Z ∞
xN1 y N1 pX(t),X(s) (x, y) dx dy
u

(4.13)

u

= E{[X(t)X(s)]N1 1{X(t)≥u,X(s)≥u} }

≤ E{[X(t) + X(s)]2N1 1{X(t)+X(s)≥2u} }


u2
2
.
≤ C3 exp εu −
(1 + ρ(δ0 ))σT2

Combining (4.10) with (4.11), (4.12) and (4.13) yields that E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )}
is super-exponentially small.

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 21

When only one of the faces, say J , is a singleton, then let J = {t0 } and
we have
E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )}
Z
Z ∞
Z
(4.14)
dx
ds
≤
J′

∞

u

u

dypX(t0 ),X(s),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, y, 0)

× E{|det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t0 ) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}.

Following the previous discussion yields that E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} is superexponentially small.
Finally, if both J and J ′ are singletons, then E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} becomes
the joint probability of two Gaussian variables exceeding level u, and hence
is trivial. 
4.3. Main results and their proofs. Now we are ready to prove our main
results on approximating the excursion probability P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u}. Theorem 4.6 contains a mild technical condition (4.15) which specifies the way
that the variogram ν(t) attains its maximum on the boundary of T . In
particular, it implies that, at each point on ∂T where ν(t) achieves σT2 :=
supt∈T ν(t), ∇ν(t) is not zero. In the case of N = 1 and T = [a, b], if ν(t) attains its maximum σT2 at the end point a or b, then (4.15) requires that ν(t)
is strictly monotone in a neighborhood of that end point. Notice that, if ν(t)
only attains its maximum in ∂N T , the interior of T , then (4.15) is satisfied
automatically. In this sense, (4.15) is more general than the corresponding
condition in Theorem 5 of Azaı̈s and Wschebor (2008).
Theorem 4.6. Let X = {X(t) : t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random
field with stationary increments such that (H1), (H2) and (H3) are fulfilled.
Suppose that for any face J ,
{t ∈ J : ν(t) = σT2 , νj (t) = 0 for some j ∈
/ σ(J)} = ∅.

(4.15)

Then there exists some constant α > 0 such that
n
o
P sup X(t) ≥ u
t∈T

=

N X
X

E{Mu (J)} + o(e−αu

2 −u2 /(2σ 2 )
T

)

k=0 J∈∂k T

(4.16)
=

X

{t}∈∂0

×

Z

J



u

Ψ p
ν(t)
T



+

N X
X

1

(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2
k=1 J∈∂k T

 
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
u −u2 /(2θt2 )
2
2
2
Hk−1
e
dt + o(e−αu −u /(2σT ) ).
k
θt
θt

22

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Remark 4.7. It should be mentioned that, for Gaussian random fields
with constant variance, Taylor, Takemura and Adler (2005) provided an
explicit form for the constant α in (1.1). However, in Theorems 4.6 and 4.8,
we are not able to give explicit information on the value(s) of α.
Proof of Theorem 4.6. Since the second equality in (4.16) follows
from Lemma 4.1 directly, we only need to prove the first one. By (4.3)
and Corollary 4.4, it suffices to show that the last term in (4.3) is superexponentially small. Thanks to Lemma 4.5, we only need to consider the
case when the distance of J and J ′ is 0, that is, I := J¯ ∩ J¯′ 6= ∅. Without
loss of generality, we assume
σ(J) = {1, . . . , m, m + 1, . . . , k},

(4.17)

σ(J ′ ) = {1, . . . , m, k + 1, . . . , k + k′ − m},

where 0 ≤ m ≤ k ≤ k′ ≤ N and k′ ≥ 1. Recall that, if k = 0, then σ(J) = ∅.
Under assumption (4.17), we have J ∈ ∂k T , J ′ ∈ ∂k′ T and dim(I) = m.
Case 1: k = 0, that is, J is a singleton, say J = {t0 }. If ν(t0 ) < σT2 , then
by (4.14), it is trivial to show that E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} is super-exponentially
6
small. Now we consider the case ν(t0 ) = σT2 . Due to (4.15), E{X(t0 )X1 (t0 )} =
0, and hence by continuity, there exists δ > 0 such that E{X(s)X1 (s)} =
6 0
for all ks − t0 k ≤ δ. It follows from (4.14) that E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} is bounded
from above by
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z
dy
dx
ds
s∈J ′ : ks−t0 k>δ

u

u

× E{|det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t0 ) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
× pX(t0 ),X(s),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, y, 0)
Z ∞
Z
dy
ds
+
s∈J ′ : ks−t0 k≤δ

u

× E{|det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(s) = y, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}pX(s),∇X|J ′ (s) (y, 0)
:= I1 + I2 .
Following the proof of Lemma 4.5, we can show that I1 is super-exponentially
small. Note that there exists a constant ε0 > 0 such that
sup
s∈J ′ : ks−t0 k≤δ

Var(X(s)|∇X|J ′ (s)) ≤

sup
s∈J ′ : ks−t0 k≤δ

Var(X(s)|X1 (s)) ≤ σT2 −ε0 .

This implies that I2 , and hence E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} are super-exponentially
small.

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 23

Case 2: k ≥ 1. For all t ∈ I with ν(t) = σT2 , by assumption (4.15),
E{X(t)Xi (t)} =
6 0, ∀i = m + 1, . . . , k + k′ − m. Since I is a compact set,
we see that there exist constants ε1 , δ1 > 0 such that
sup
(4.18)

t∈B,s∈B ′

Var(X(t)|Xm+1 (t), . . . , Xk (t), Xk+1 (s), . . . , Xk+k′ −m (s))

≤ σT2 − ε1 ,

where B = {t ∈ J : dist(t, I) ≤ δ1 } and B ′ = {s ∈ J ′ : dist(s, I) ≤ δ1 }. It follows
from (4.10) that E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} is bounded by
Z ∞
Z ∞
ZZ
dypX(t),X(s),∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, y, 0, 0)
dx
dt ds
(J×J ′ )\(B×B ′ )

u

u

× E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J (t) = 0,
+

ZZ

dt ds
B×B ′

Z

∞

u

∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}

dxpX(t) (x|∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0)
× p∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (0, 0)

× E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
:= I3 + I4 .

Note that
(4.19)

(J × J ′ ) \ (B × B ′ )
= ((J \ B) × B ′ ) ∪ (B × (J ′ \ B ′ )) ∪ ((J \ B) × (J ′ \ B ′ )).

Since each product set on the right-hand side of (4.19) consists of two sets
with positive distance, following the proof of Lemma 4.5 we can verify that
I3 is super-exponentially small.
For I4 , taking into account (4.18), one has
(4.20)

sup
t∈B,s∈B ′

Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t), ∇X|J ′ (s)) ≤ σT2 − ε1 .

For any t ∈ B, s ∈ B ′ with s 6= t, in order to estimate
(4.21)

p∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (0, 0)
′

= (2π)−(k+k )/2 (detCov(∇X|J (t), ∇X|J ′ (s)))−1/2 ,

we write the determinant on the right-hand side of (4.21) as

detCov(Xm+1 (t), . . . , Xk (t), Xk+1 (s), . . . , Xk+k′ −1 (s)|
(4.22)

X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), X1 (s), . . . , Xm (s))
× detCov(X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), X1 (s), . . . , Xm (s)),

24

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

where the first determinant in (4.22) is bounded away from zero due to (H3).
By (H1), as shown in Piterbarg (1996b), applying Taylor’s formula, we can
write
(4.23)

∇X(s) = ∇X(t) + ∇2 X(t)(s − t)T + ks − tk1+η Yt,s ,

1 , . . . , Y N )T is a Gaussian vector field with bounded variance
where Yt,s = (Yt,s
t,s
uniformly for all t ∈ J , s ∈ J ′ . Hence as ks − tk → 0, the second determinant
in (4.22) becomes
1
detCov(X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), X1 (t) + h∇X1 (t), s − ti + ks − tk1+η Yt,s
,...,

m
Xm (t) + h∇Xm (t), s − ti + ks − tk1+η Yt,s
)

1
= detCov(X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), h∇X1 (t), s − ti + ks − tk1+η Yt,s
,...,
(4.24)
m
h∇Xm (t), s − ti + ks − tk1+η Yt,s
)

= ks − tk2m detCov(X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), h∇X1 (t), et,s i, . . . , h∇Xm (t), et,s i)
× (1 + o(1)),

where et,s = (s − t)T /ks − tk and due to (H3), the last determinant in (4.24)
is bounded away from zero uniformly for all t ∈ J and s ∈ J ′ . It then follows
from (4.22) and (4.24) that
detCov(∇X|J (t), ∇X|J ′ (s)) ≥ C1 ks − tk2m

(4.25)

for some constant C1 > 0. Similar to (4.11), there exist constants C2 , N1 > 0
such that
sup E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||

t∈J,s∈J ′

X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}

(4.26)

≤ C2 (1 + xN1 ).

Combining (4.20) with (4.21), (4.25) and (4.26), and noting that m < k′
implies 1/ks − tkm is integrable on J × J ′ , we conclude that I4 , and hence
E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} are finite and super-exponentially small. 
Theorem 4.8. Let X = {X(t) : t ∈ RN } be a centered Gaussian random
field with stationary increments and X(0) = 0. Assume that (H1), (H2) and
(H3) are fulfilled. Then there exists a constant α > 0 such that
N X
n
o X
2
2
2
P sup X(t) ≥ u =
E{MuE (J)} + o(e−αu −u /(2σT ) )
t∈T

(4.27)

k=0 J∈∂k T

= E{ϕ(Au )} + o(e−αu

2 −u2 /(2σ 2 )
T

),

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 25

where E{ϕ(Au )} is the mean Euler characteristic of Au formulated in Theorem 3.2.
The main idea for the proof of Theorem 4.8 comes from Azaı̈s and Delmas
(2002) (especially their Theorem 4). Before showing the proof, we list the
following two lemmas whose proofs are given in the Appendix.
Under (H2), there exists a constant α0 > 0 such that

Lemma 4.9.

he, (Λ − Λ(t))ei ≥ α0

∀t ∈ T, e ∈ SN −1 .

Lemma 4.10. Let {ξ1 (t) : t ∈ T1 } and {ξ2 (t) : t ∈ T2 } be two centered
Gaussian random fields. Let
σi2 (t) = Var(ξi (t)),
ρ(t, s) =

σ i = inf σi (t),

σ i = sup σi (t),

t∈Ti

t∈Ti

E{ξ1 (t)ξ2 (s)}
,
σ1 (t)σ2 (s)

ρ=

ρ(t, s),

sup
t∈T1 ,s∈T2

ρ=

inf

t∈T1 ,s∈T2

ρ(t, s),

and assume 0 < σ i ≤ σ i < ∞ for i = 1, 2. If 0 < ρ ≤ ρ < 1, then for any
N1 , N2 > 0, there exists a constant α > 0 such that as u → ∞,
sup
t∈T1 ,s∈T2

E{(1 + |ξ1 (t)|N1 + |ξ2 (s)|N2 )1{ξ1 (t)≥u,ξ2 (s)<0} } = o(e−αu

2 −u2 /(2σ 2 )
1

).

2 −u2 /(2σ 2 )
1

).

Similarly, if −1 < ρ ≤ ρ < 0, then
sup
t∈T1 ,s∈T2

E{(1 + |ξ1 (t)|N1 + |ξ2 (s)|N2 )1{ξ1 (t)≥u,ξ2 (s)>0} } = o(e−αu

Proof of Theorem 4.8. Note that the second equality in (4.27) follows from Theorem 3.2 and Lemma 4.2, and similar to the proof in Theorem 4.6, we only need to show that E{MuE (J)MuE (J ′ )} is super-exponentially
small when J and J ′ are neighboring. Let I := J¯ ∩ J¯′ 6= ∅. We follow the
assumptions in (4.17) and assume also that all elements in ε(J) and ε(J ′ )
−k ′
N −k
.
and E(J ′ ) = RN
are 1, which implies E(J) = R+
+
We first consider the case k ≥ 1. By the Kac–Rice metatheorem, E{MuE (J)×
E
Mu (J ′ )} is bounded from above by
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z
Z
dzk+1 · · ·
dy
dx
ds
dt
J

×

Z

J′
∞

0

u

dzk+k′ −m

Z

u
∞

0

0

dwm+1 · · ·

Z

∞

dwk

0

× E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||
X(t) = x, X(s) = y, ∇X|J (t) = 0, Xk+1 (t) = zk+1 , . . . ,

26

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

(4.28)
Xk+k′ −m (t) = zk+k′ −m , ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0,
Xm+1 (s) = wm+1 , . . . , Xk (s) = wk }
× pt,s (x, y, 0, zk+1 , . . . , zk+k′ −m , 0, wm+1 , . . . , wk )
ZZ
A(t, s) dt ds,
:=
J×J ′

where pt,s (x, y, 0, zk+1 , . . . , zk+k′ −m , 0, wm+1 , . . . , wk ) is the density of
(X(t), X(s), ∇X|J (t), Xk+1 (t), . . . , Xk+k′ −m (t), ∇X|J ′ (s), Xm+1 (s), . . . , Xk (s))
evaluated at (x, y, 0, zk+1 , . . . , zk+k′ −m , 0, wm+1 , . . . , wk ).
Let {e1 , e2 , . . . , eN } be the standard orthonormal basis of RN . For t ∈ J
and s ∈ J ′ , let et,s = (s − t)T /ks − tk and let αi (t, s) = hei , (Λ − Λ(t))et,s i,
then
(4.29)

(Λ − Λ(t))et,s =

N
X
i=1

hei , (Λ − Λ(t))et,s iei =

N
X

αi (t, s)ei .

i=1

By Lemma 4.9, there exists some α0 > 0 such that
(4.30)

het,s , (Λ − Λ(t))et,s i ≥ α0

for all t and s. Under the assumptions (4.17) and that all elements in ε(J)
and ε(J ′ ) are 1, we have the following representation:
t = (t1 , . . . , tm , tm+1 , . . . , tk , bk+1 , . . . , bk+k′ −m , 0, . . . , 0),
s = (s1 , . . . , sm , bm+1 , . . . , bk , sk+1 , . . . , sk+k′−m , 0, . . . , 0),
where ti ∈ (ai , bi ) for all i ∈ σ(J) and sj ∈ (aj , bj ) for all j ∈ σ(J ′ ). Therefore,
hei , et,s i ≥ 0
(4.31)

∀m + 1 ≤ i ≤ k,

∀k + 1 ≤ i ≤ k + k′ − m,

hei , et,s i ≤ 0

∀k + k′ − m < i ≤ N.

hei , et,s i = 0
Let

Di = {(t, s) ∈ J × J ′ : αi (t, s) ≥ βi }

if m + 1 ≤ i ≤ k,

(4.32) Di = {(t, s) ∈ J × J ′ : αi (t, s) ≤ −βi }
if k + 1 ≤ i ≤ k + k′ − m,
)
(
m
X
′
αi (t, s)hei , et,s i ≥ β0 ,
D0 = (t, s) ∈ J × J :
i=1

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 27

P ′ −m
where β0 , β1 , . . . , βk+k′ −m are positive constants such that β0 + k+k
i=m+1 βi <
α0 . It follows from (4.31) and (4.32) that, if (t, s) does not belong to any of
D0 , Dm , . . . , Dk+k′ −m , then by (4.29),
h(Λ − Λ(t))et,s , et,s i =

N
X
i=1

αi (t, s)hei , et,s i ≤ β0 +

′ −m
k+k
X

βi < α0 ,

i=m+1

Sk+k′ −m
which contradicts (4.30). Thus, D0 ∪ i=m+1
Di is a covering of J × J ′ , by
(4.28),
′ −m Z Z
ZZ
k+k
X
′
E
E
A(t, s) dt ds.
A(t, s) dt ds +
E{Mu (J)Mu (J )} ≤
D0

i=m+1

RR

Di

We first show that D0 A(t, s) dt ds is super-exponentially small. Similar
to the proof of Theorem 4.6, applying (4.21), (4.25) and (4.26), we obtain
ZZ
A(t, s) dt ds
D0

≤

ZZ

dt ds
D0

Z

∞

dxp∇X|J (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (0, 0)

u

× pX(t) (x|∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0)
(4.33)

× E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||

X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
Z ∞
ZZ
′
≤ C1
dx(1 + xN1 )ks − tk−m
dt ds
D0

u

× pX(t) (x|∇X|J (t) = 0, ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0),

for some positive constants C1′ and N1 . Due to Lemma 4.5, we only need
to consider the case when ks − tk is small. It follows from Taylor’s formula
(4.23) that as ks − tk → 0,
Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t), ∇X|J ′ (s))
≤ Var(X(t)|X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), X1 (s), . . . , Xm (s))
= Var(X(t)|X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), X1 (t) + h∇X1 (t), s − ti
1
+ ks − tk1+η Yt,s
,...,

(4.34)

m
Xm (t) + h∇Xm (t), s − ti + ks − tk1+η Yt,s
)

1
= Var(X(t)|X1 (t), . . . , Xm (t), h∇X1 (t), et,s i + ks − tkη Yt,s
,...,

m
h∇Xm (t), et,s i + ks − tkη Yt,s
)

28

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO
1
≤ Var(X(t)|h∇X1 (t), et,s i + ks − tkη Yt,s
, . . . , h∇Xm (t), et,s i
m
+ ks − tkη Yt,s
)

= Var(X(t)|h∇X1 (t), et,s i, . . . , h∇Xm (t), et,s i) + o(1).

By Lemma A.1, the eigenvalues of [Cov(h∇X1 (t), et,s i, . . . , h∇Xm (t), et,s i)]−1
are bounded uniformly in t and s. Note that E{X(t)h∇Xi (t), et,s i} = −αi (t, s).
Applying these facts to the last line of (4.34), we see that there exist constants C4 > 0 and ε0 > 0 such that for ks − tk sufficiently small,
Var(X(t)|∇X|J (t), ∇X|J ′ (s)) ≤ σT2 − C4
(4.35)

< σT2 − ε0 ,

m
X

α2i (t, s) + o(1)

i=1

where the last inequality is due to the fact that (t, s) ∈ D0 implies
!2
m
m
m
X
X
X
1
β2
αi (t, s)het,s , ei i ≥ 0 .
α2i (t, s)|hei , et,s i|2 ≥
α2i (t, s) ≥
m
m
i=1

i=1

i=1

m
′
Plugging (4.35) into
RR (4.33) and noting that 1/ks − tk is integrable on J × J ,
we conclude that D0 A(t, s) dt ds is finite and super-exponentially small.
RR
Next we show that Di A(t, s) dt ds is super-exponentially small for i =
RR
m + 1, . . . , k. It follows from (4.28) that Di A(t, s) dt ds is bounded by
Z ∞
Z ∞
ZZ
dwi pX(t),∇X|J (t),Xi (s),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, 0, wi , 0)
dx
dt ds
Di

u

0

×E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||

(4.36)

X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0, Xi (s) = wi , ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}.
We can write
pX(t),Xi (s) (x, wi |Xi (t) = 0)
=

where

1
2πσ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)(1 − ρ2 (t, s))1/2

 2

wi2
2ρ(t, s)xwi
x
1
+
−
× exp −
,
2(1 − ρ2 (t, s)) σ12 (t) σ22 (t, s) σ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)

σ12 (t) = Var(X(t)|Xi (t) = 0),
σ22 (t, s) = Var(Xi (s)|Xi (t) = 0) =

ρ(t, s) =

E{X(t)Xi (s)|Xi (t) = 0}
,
σ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)

detCov(Xi (s), Xi (t))
,
λii

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 29

and ρ2 (t, s) < 1 due to (H3). Therefore,
pX(t),∇X|J (t),Xi (s),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, 0, wi , 0)
= p∇X|J ′ (s),X1 (t),...,Xi−1 (t),Xi+1 (t),...,Xk (t)
× (0|X(t) = x, Xi (s) = wi , Xi (t) = 0)

(4.37)

× pX(t),Xi (s) (x, wi |Xi (t) = 0)pXi (t) (0)
 2


x
wi2
2ρ(t, s)xwi
1
+
−
≤ C5 exp −
2(1 − ρ2 (t, s)) σ12 (t) σ22 (t, s) σ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)
× (detCov(X(t), ∇X|J (t), Xi (s), ∇X|J ′ (s)))−1/2

for some positive constant C5 . Also, by an argument that is similar to the
proof of Theorem 4.6, we can show that there exist positive constants C6 , N2
and N3 such that
(4.38)

detCov(∇X|J (t), Xi (s), ∇X|J ′ (s)) ≥ C6−1 ks − tk2(m+1) ,

C6−1 ks − tk2 ≤ σ22 (t, s) ≤ C6 ks − tk2

(4.39)
and

E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||
X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0, Xi (s) = wi , ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}

= E{|det ∇2 X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0,

(4.40)

h∇Xi (t), et,s i = wi /ks − tk + o(1), ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
≤ C7 (xN2 + (wi /ks − tk)N3 + 1).
Combining (4.36) with (4.37), (4.38) and (4.40), and making change of variable w = wi /ks − tk, we obtain that for some positive constant C8 ,
ZZ
A(t, s) dt ds
Di

≤ C8
(4.41)

ZZ

Di

dt dsks − tk−m−1

Z

∞

dx

u

Z

∞

dwi

0

× (xN2 + (wi /ks − tk)N3 + 1)

 2

1
wi2
2ρ(t, s)xwi
x
× exp −
+
−
2(1 − ρ2 (t, s)) σ12 (t) σ22 (t, s) σ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)
ZZ
Z ∞
Z ∞
−m
dt dsks − tk
dw(xN2 + wN3 + 1)
= C8
dx
Di

u

0

30

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO


× exp −

 2

x
w2
2ρ(t, s)xw
1
,
+ 2
−
2(1 − ρ2 (t, s)) σ12 (t) σ
σ2 (t, s)
e2 (t, s) σ1 (t)e

where σ
e2 (t, s) = σ2 (t, s)/ks − tk is bounded by (4.39). Applying Taylor’s
formula (4.23) to Xi (s) and noting that E{X(t)h∇Xi (t), et,s i} = −αi (t, s),
we obtain


1
1
ρ(t, s) =
E{X(t)Xi (t)}E{Xi (s)Xi (t)}
E{X(t)Xi (s)} −
σ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)
λii

ks − tk
i
−αi (t, s) + ks − tkη E{X(t)Yt,s
}
=
σ1 (t)σ2 (t, s)

ks − tkη
i
−
E{X(t)Xi (t)}E{Xi (t)Yt,s } .
λii
By (4.39) and the fact that (t, s) ∈ Di implies αi (t, s) ≥ βi > 0 for i = m +
1, . . . , k, we conclude that ρ(t, s) ≤ −δ0 for some δ0 > 0 uniformly for t ∈ J ,
s ∈ J ′ with RR
ks − tk sufficiently small. Then applying Lemma 4.10 to (4.41)
yields that Di A(t, s) dt ds is super-exponentially small.
RR
It is similar to prove that Di A(t, s) dt ds is super-exponentially small for
RR
i = k + 1, . . . , k + k′ − m. In fact, in such case, Di A(t, s) dt ds is bounded
by
Z ∞
ZZ
Z ∞
dt ds
dx
dzi pX(t),∇X|J (t),Xi (t),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, 0, zi , 0)
Di

0

u

2

× E{|det ∇ X|J (t)||det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||

X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0, Xi (t) = zi , ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}.

We can follow the proof in the previous stage by exchanging the positions
of Xi (s) and Xi (t) and replacing wi with zi . The details are omitted since
the procedure is very similar.
If k = 0, then m = 0 and σ(J ′ ) = {1, . . . , k′ }. Since J becomes a singleton,
we may let J = {t0 }. By the Kac–Rice metatheorem, E{Mu (J)Mu (J ′ )} is
bounded by
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z ∞
Z
dzk′ pt0 ,s (x, y, z1 , . . . , zk′ , 0)
dz1 · · ·
dy
dx
ds
J′

u

u

0

0

2

× E{|det ∇ X|J ′ (s)||
X(t0 ) = x, X(s) = y, X1 (t0 ) = z1 , . . . , Xk′ (t0 ) = zk′ , ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}
Z
e 0 , s) ds,
A(t
:=
J′

where pt0 ,s (x, y, z1 , . . . , zk′ , 0) is the density of (X(t0 ), X(s), X1 (t0 ), . . . , Xk′ (t0 ),
∇X|J ′ (s)) evaluated at (x, y, z1 , . . . , zk′ , 0). Similarly, J ′ could be covered by

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 31

Sk ′

e with D
e i = {s ∈ J ′ : αi (t0 , s) ≤ −βei } for some positive constants βei ,
1 ≤ i ≤ k′ . On the other hand,
Z
Z
Z ∞
Z ∞
e
dzi pX(t0 ),Xi (t0 ),∇X|J ′ (s) (x, zi , 0)
A(t0 , s) ds ≤
dx
ds
i=1 Di

ei
D

ei
D

u

0

× E{|det ∇2 X|J ′ (s)||X(t0 ) = x, Xi (t0 ) = zi , ∇X|J ′ (s) = 0}.

By similar discussions, we obtain that E{MuE (J)MuE (J ′ )} is super-exponentially small, and hence complete the proof. 
5. Further remarks and examples.
Remark 5.1 (The case when T contains the origin). We now show that
the conclusions of Theorems 4.6 and 4.8 still hold when T contains the origin.
In such case, condition (H3) is actually not satisfied since X(0) = 0 is degenerate [this is in contrast with the case when X = {X(t), t ∈ RN } is assumed
to have constant variance]. We will in fact prove a more general result. Let
T0 ⊂ T be a finite union of compact rectangles such that supt∈T0 ν(t) < σT2 ,
then according to the Borell–TIS inequality, P{supt∈T0 X(t) ≥ u} is superexponentially small. Let Tb = T \ T0 , then
n
o
n
o
P sup X(t) ≥ u ≤ P sup X(t) ≥ u
t∈Tb

(5.1)

t∈T

n
o
n
o
≤ P sup X(t) ≥ u + P sup X(t) ≥ u .
t∈Tb

t∈T0

To estimate P{supt∈Tb X(t) ≥ u}, similar to the rectangle T , we decomS
b
pose Tb into several faces by lower dimensions such that Tb = N
k=0 ∂k T =
SN S
k=0 L∈∂k Tb L. Then we can get the bounds similar to (4.3) with T replaced with Tb and J replaced with L. Following the proof of Theorem 4.6
yields
N X
n
o X
2
2
2
E{Mu (L)} + o(e−αu −u /(2σT ) ).
P sup X(t) ≥ u =
t∈Tb

k=0 L∈∂k Tb

Because supt∈T0 ν(t) < σT2 , we can show that terms E{Mu (L)} are superexponentially small for all faces L such that L ⊂ ∂k T̄0 with 0 ≤ k ≤ N − 1.
The same reasoning yields that for 1 ≤ k ≤ N , L ∈ ∂k Tb, J ∈ ∂k T such
that L ⊂ J , the difference between E{Mu (L)} and E{Mu (J)} is superexponentially small. Hence, we obtain
n
o
P sup X(t) ≥ u
t∈Tb

32

(5.2)

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

=

X

{t}∈∂0

×

Z

J



u

Ψ p
ν(t)
T



+

N X
X

1

(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2
k=1 J∈∂k T

 
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
u −u2 /(2θt2 )
2
2
2
Hk−1
e
dt + o(e−αu −u /(2σT ) ).
k
θ
θt
t
2

2

Here, by convention, if θt = 0, we regard e−u /(2θt ) as 0. Combining (5.1)
with (5.2), we conclude that Theorem 4.6 still holds when T contains the
origin. The argument for Theorem 4.8 is similar.
Remark 5.2. Based on the proofs of Theorems 4.6 and 4.8, one may
expect that the approximation (1.1) holds for a much wider class of smooth
Gaussian fields (not necessarily with stationary increments). Meanwhile, the
argument for the parameter set could go far beyond the rectangle case. These
further developments are in Cheng (2013).
Remark 5.3 (Refinements of Theorem 4.6). Let X be a Gaussian field
as in Theorem 4.6. Suppose that ν(t0 ) = σT2 for some t0 ∈ J ∈ ∂k T (k ≥ 0)
and ν(t) < σT2 for all t ∈ T \ {t0 }.
(i) If k = 0, then, due to (4.15), supt∈T \{t0 } θt2 ≤ σT2 − ε0 for some ε0 > 0.
This implies that E{Mu (J ′ )} are super-exponentially small for all faces J ′
other than {t0 }. Therefore, there is a constant α > 0 such that
 
n
o
u
2
2
2
(5.3) P sup X(t) ≥ u = Ψ
+ o(e−αu −u /(2σT ) )
as u → ∞.
σT
t∈T

For example, let Y be a stationary isotropic Gaussian field with covariance
2
ρ(t) = e−ktk and define X(t) = Y (t) − Y (0). Then X is a smooth Gaussian
field with stationary increments satisfying conditions (H1)–(H3). Let T =
[0, 1]N , then we can apply (5.3) to approximate the excursion probability of
X with t0 = (1, . . . , 1).
(ii) If k ≥ 1, then similarly, E{Mu (J ′ )} are super-exponentially small for
all faces J ′ 6= J . It follows from Theorem 4.6 that
Z
n
o
uk−1
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)| −u2 /(2θt2 )
e
dt(1 + o(1)).
P sup X(t) ≥ u =
(k+1)/2 |Λ |1/2
(2π)
θt2k−1
t∈T
J
J

Let τ (t) = θt2 , then ∀i ∈ σ(J), τi (t0 ) = 0, since t0 is a local maximum point
of τ restricted on J . Assume additionally that the Hessian matrix
(5.4)

ΘJ (t0 ) := (τij (t0 ))i,j∈σ(J)

(here τij = ∂ 2 τ /∂ti ∂tj ) is negative definite, then the Hessian matrix of
1/(2θt2 ) at t0 restricted on J ,
1
e J (t0 ) = − 1 (τij (t0 ))
Θ
ΘJ (t0 ),
i,j∈σ(J) = −
2
2τ (t0 )
2σT4

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 33

is positive definite. Let g(t) = |ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|/θt2k−1 and h(t) = 1/(2θt2 ), applying Lemma A.2 in the Appendix with T replaced by J yields that as
u → ∞,
n
o
P sup X(t) ≥ u
t∈T

(5.5)

2
2
(2π)k/2
uk−1 |ΛJ − ΛJ (t0 )|
e−u /(2θt0 ) (1 + o(1))
2k−1 k e
(k+1)/2
1/2
(2π)
|ΛJ | θt0 u |ΘJ (t0 )|1/2
 
u
2k/2 |ΛJ − ΛJ (t0 )|
Ψ
(1 + o(1)).
=
σT
|ΛJ |1/2 | − ΘJ (t0 )|1/2

=

Example 5.4 (The cosine field). We consider the cosine random field
Z on R2 [cf. Adler and Taylor (2007), page 382]:
2

1 X
(ξi cos ti + ξi′ sin ti ),
Z(t) = √
2 i=1

t = (t1 , t2 ) ∈ R2 ,

where ξ1 , ξ1′ , ξ2 , ξ2′ are independent, standard Gaussian variables. Clearly Z
is a centered, unit-variance and smooth stationary Gaussian field. Moreover,
Z is periodic and Z(t) = −Z11 (t) − Z22 (t). Let X(t) = Z(t) − Z(0) for all t ∈
T ⊂ [0, 2π)2 . Then X is a centered and smooth Gaussian field with stationary
increments with X(0) = 0. The variogram and covariance of X are given
respectively by
(5.6)

ν(t) = 2 − cos t1 − cos t2 ,
2

C(t, s) = 1 +

1X
[cos(ti − si ) − cos ti − cos si ].
2
i=1

Taking the partial derivatives of C gives
(5.7)

E{X(t)∇X(t)} = 12 (sin t1 , sin t2 )T ,

Λ = Cov(∇X(t)) = 21 I2 ,

Λ − Λ(t) = −E{X(t)∇2 X(t)} = 12 [I2 − diag(cos t1 , cos t2 )],

where I2 is the 2 × 2 identity matrix and diag denotes the diagonal matrix. Therefore, X satisfies conditions (H1) and (H2) on T ⊂ (0, 2π)2 . Even
though condition (H3) is not fully satisfied [because X12 (t) ≡ 0 and X(t) =
−2X11 (t) − 2X22 (t) when t = (π, π)], it can be shown that this does not affect the validity of Theorems 3.2, 4.6 and 4.8 for the random field {Z(t) −
Z(0), t ∈ R2 } with T ⊂ (0, 2π)2 .
(i) Let T = [0, π/2]2 . Then by (5.6), ν(t) attains its maximum 2 only
at the upper-right vertex (π/2, π/2), where both partial derivatives of ν
are positive. By Remark 5.1 (with T0 = [0, ε] × [0, π/2] ∪ [0, π/2] × [0, ε],

34

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

where ε > 0 is sufficiently small)
and the result (i) in Remark 5.3, we obtain
√
2
P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} = Ψ(u/ 2)(1 + o(e−αu )).
(ii) Let T = [0, 3π/2] × [0, π/2]. Then ν(t) attains its maximum 3 only at
the boundary point t∗ = (π, π/2), where ν2 (t∗ ) > 0 so that condition (4.15) is
satisfied. In this case, t∗ ∈ J = (0, 3π/2) × {π/2}. By (5.7), we obtain ΛJ = 12
and ΛJ − ΛJ (t∗ ) = 21 (1 − cos t∗1 ) = 1. On the other hand, for t ∈ J , by (5.7),
(5.8)

τ (t) = θt2 = Var(X(t)|X1 (t)) = 2 − cos t1 − cos t2 − 21 sin2 t1 .

Therefore, ΘJ (t∗ ) = τ11 (t∗ ) = −2.
these into (5.5) with k = 1,
√ By plugging
√
we have P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} = 2Ψ(u/ 3)(1 + o(1)).
(iii) Let T = [0, 3π/2]2 . Then ν(t) attains its maximum 4 only at the
interior point t∗ = (π, π). In this case, t∗ ∈ J = (0, 3π/2)2 . By (5.7), we obtain
ΛJ = 12 I2 and ΛJ − ΛJ (t∗ ) = I2 . On the other hand, for t ∈ J , by (5.7),
τ (t) = θt2 = Var(X(t)|X1 (t), X2 (t))

(5.9)

= 2 − cos t1 − cos t2 − 21 sin2 t1 − 12 sin2 t2 .

Therefore, ΘJ (t∗ ) = (τij (t∗ ))i,j=1,2 = −2I2 . By plugging these into (5.5) with
k = 2, we obtain P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} = 2Ψ(u/2)(1 + o(1)).
Remark 5.5 (Refinements of Theorem 4.8). Let X be a Gaussian field
as in Theorem 4.8. Suppose t0 ∈ J ∈ ∂k T is the only point in T such that
ν(t0 ) = σT2 . Assume σ(J) = {1, . . . , k}, all elements in ε(J) are 1, νk′ (t0 ) = 0
for all k + 1 ≤ k′ ≤ N . Then by Theorem 4.8,
n
o
P sup X(t) ≥ u
(5.10)

t∈T

N
X

= E{MuE (J)} +

X

E{MuE (J ′ )} + o(e−αu

2 −u2 /(2σ 2 )
T

k ′ =k+1 J ′ ∈∂k′ T,J¯′ ∩J6¯=∅

P
2
Lemma 4.2 indicates E{MuE (J)} = (−1)k E{ ki=0 (−1)i µi (J)}(1 + o(e−αx )).
Therefore,
Z
E
k
E{Mu (J)} = (−1)
p∇X|J (t) (0) dt
J

× E{det ∇2 X|J (t)1{(Xk+1 (t),...,XN (t))∈RN−k }
+

2

(5.11)

=

Z

∞

u

dx

Z

× 1{X(t)≥u} |∇X|J (t) = 0}(1 + o(e−αx ))
2

dt
J

2

(−1)k e−x /(2θt )
(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2 θt

× E{det ∇2 X|J (t)1{(Xk+1 (t),...,XN (t))∈RN−k } |
+

).

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 35
2

:=

Z

X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}(1 + o(e−αu ))

∞

2

AJ (x) dx(1 + o(e−αu )).

u

Similarly, we have
E{MuE (J ′ )}
Z
Z ∞
dx
=

2

′

2

(−1)k e−x /(2θt )
(2π)(k′ +1)/2 |ΛJ ′ |1/2 θt
J′
u
2
× E{det ∇ X|J ′ (t)1{(X (t),...,X
dt

′
J1

′
(t))∈RN−k
}
+
J′
N−k′

|
2

X(t) = x, ∇X|J ′ (t) = 0}(1 + o(e−αu )).

(i) First, we consider the case k ≥ 1. We use the same notation τ (t), ΘJ (t)
e J (t) in Remark 5.3. Let h(t) = 1/(2θt2 ) and
and Θ
gx (t) =

(−1)k
E{det ∇2 X|J (t)1{(Xk+1 (t),...,XN (t))∈RN−k } |
(k+1)/2
1/2
+
(2π)
|ΛJ | θt
X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0}.

Note that supt∈T |gx (t)| = o(xN1 ) for some N1 > 0 as x → ∞, which implies
2
that the growth of gx (t) can be dominated by the exponential decay e−x h(t) ,
hence both Lemmas A.2 and A.3 in the Appendix are still applicable. Applying Lemma A.2 with T replaced by J and u replaced by x2 , we obtain
that as x → ∞,
(5.12)

AJ (x) =

(2π)k/2
2
2
gx (t0 )e−x /(2σT ) (1 + o(1)).
k
1/2
e
x (det ΘJ (t0 ))

On the other hand, it follows from (3.16) that
Z
Z
1
dyk+1 · · · dyN
···
gx (t) =
(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2 θt
RN−k
+


|ΛJ − ΛJ (t)|
x
×
+ γt Ck+1 (t)yk+1 + · · · + γt CN (t)yN
Hk
γt
γtk
× pXk+1(t),...,XN (t) (yk+1 , . . . , yN |X(t) = x, ∇X|J (t) = 0).

Note that, under the assumptions on X at the beginning of Remark 5.5,
X(t0 ) and ∇X(t0 ) are independent, and Cj (t0 ) = 0 for all 1 ≤ j ≤ N . Therefore,
 
x
|ΛJ − ΛJ (t0 )|
Hk
gx (t0 ) =
k+1
σT
(2π)(k+1)/2 |ΛJ |1/2 σT
N −k
|∇X|J (t0 ) = 0}.
× P{(Xk+1 (t0 ), . . . , XN (t0 )) ∈ R+

36

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Plugging this and (5.12) into (5.11), we obtain
E{MuE (J)}
(5.13)

 
u
2k/2 |ΛJ − ΛJ (t0 )|
Ψ
=
1/2
1/2
σT
|ΛJ | | − ΘJ (t0 )|

N −k
|∇X|J (t0 ) = 0}(1 + o(1)).
× P{(Xk+1 (t0 ), . . . , XN (t0 )) ∈ R+

For J ′ ∈ ∂k′ T with J¯′ ∩ J¯ 6= ∅, we apply Lemma A.3 with T replaced by J ′
to obtain
E{MuE (J ′ )}
(5.14) =

 
′
′
2k /2 |ΛJ ′ − ΛJ ′ (t0 )|
u
Ψ
P{ZJ ′ (t0 ) ∈ Rk− −k }
σT
|ΛJ ′ |1/2 | − ΘJ ′ (t0 )|1/2
′

× P{(XJ1′ (t0 ), . . . , XJ ′

N−k′

−k
|∇X|J ′ (t0 ) = 0}(1 + o(1)),
(t0 )) ∈ RN
+

where ZJ ′ (t0 ) is a centered (k′ − k)-dimensional Gaussian vector with covariance matrix −(τij )i,j∈σ(J ′ )\σ(J) . Plugging (5.13) and (5.14) into (5.10),
we obtain the asymptotic result.
(ii) k = 0, say J = {t0 }. Note that X(t0 ) and ∇X(t0 ) are independent,
therefore,
 
u
E
(5.15)
P{∇X(t0 ) ∈ RN
E{Mu (J)} = Ψ
+ }.
σT
For J ′ ∈ ∂k′ T with J¯′ ∩ J¯ 6= ∅, then E{MuE (J ′ )} is given by (5.14) with k = 0.
Plugging (5.15) and (5.14) into (5.10), we obtain the asymptotic formula for
the excursion probability.
Example 5.6 (Continued: The cosine field). We consider the Gaussian
field X = {X(t), t ∈ R2 } defined in Example 5.4.
(i) Let T = [0, π]2 . Then ν(t) attains its maximum 4 only at the corner
∗
t = (π, π), where ∇ν(t∗ ) = 0 so that the condition (4.15) is not satisfied.
Instead, we will use the result (ii) in Remark 5.5 with J = {t∗ } and k = 0. Let
J ′ = (0, π) × {π}, J ′′ = {π} × (0, π). Combining the results in Example 5.4
with (5.15) and (5.14), and noting that Λ = 12 I2 implies X1 (t) and X2 (t) are
independent for all t, we obtain
E{MuE (J)} = 41 Ψ(u/2),

E{MuE (∂2 T )} = 12 Ψ(u/2)(1 + o(1)),

E{MuE (J ′ )} = E{MuE (J ′′ )} =

√
2
4 Ψ(u/2)(1 + o(1)).

√
Summing these up, we have P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} = [(3 + 2 2)/4]Ψ(u/2)(1 +
o(1)).

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 37

(ii) Let T = [0, 3π/2] × [0, π]. Then ν(t) attains its maximum 4 only at
the boundary point t∗ = (π, π), where ν2 (t∗ ) = 0. Applying the result (i) in
Remark 5.5 with J = (0, 3π/2) × {π} and k = 1, we obtain
√

E{MuE (∂2 T )} = Ψ(u/2)(1 + o(1)),
√
which implies that P{supt∈T X(t) ≥ u} = [(2 + 2)/2]Ψ(u/2)(1 + o(1)).
E{MuE (J)} =

2
2 Ψ(u/2),

Remark 5.7. Note that we only provide the first-order approximation
for the examples in this section. However, as shown in the theory of the
approximations of integrals [see, e.g., Wong (2001)], the integrals in (4.16)
and (4.27) can be expanded with more terms once the covariance function
of the Gaussian field is smooth enough. Hence, for the examples above,
higher-order approximation is available. Since the procedure is similar and
the computation is tedious, we omit such argument here.
APPENDIX
This appendix contains proofs of Lemmas 4.9, 4.10 and some other auxiliary facts.
Proof of Lemma 4.9. Let MN ×N be the set of all N × N matrices.
Define a mapping φ : RN × MN ×N → R by (ξ, A) 7→ hξ, Aξi. Then φ is continuous. Since Λ − Λ(t) is positive definite, we have φ(e, Λ − Λ(t)) > 0 for all
t ∈ T and e ∈ SN −1 . The conclusion of the lemma follows from this and the
fact that {(e, Λ − Λ(t)) : t ∈ T, e ∈ SN −1 } is a compact subset of RN × MN ×N
and φ is continuous. 
Proof Lemma 4.10. We only prove the first case, since the second case
follows from the first one. By elementary computation on the joint density
of ξ1 (t) and ξ2 (s), we obtain
sup
t∈T1 ,s∈T2

E{(1 + |ξ1 (t)|N1 + |ξ2 (s)|N2 )1{ξ1 (t)≥u,ξ2 (s)<0} }



Z ∞
1
x21
exp
−
dx1
2σ 21
2πσ 1 σ 2 (1 − ρ2 )1/2 u


 
Z 0
σ 2 ρx1 2
1
N1
N2
x2 −
(1 + |x1 | + |x2 | ) exp − 2
×
dx2
σ1
2σ 2 (1 − ρ2 )
−∞



σ 22 ρ2 u2
u2
2
+
εu
,
= o exp − 2 − 2
2σ 1 2σ 2 (1 − ρ2 )σ 21

≤

as u → ∞, for any ε > 0. 

A similar argument for proving Lemma 4.9 yields the following result.

38

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Lemma A.1. Let {A(t) = (aij (t))1≤i,j≤N : t ∈ T } be a family of positive
definite matrices such that all elements aij (·) are continuous. Denote by x
and x the infimum and supremum of the eigenvalues of A(t) over t ∈ T ,
respectively, then 0 < x ≤ x < ∞.
The following two formulas state the results on the Laplace approximation
method. Lemma A.2 can be found in many books on the approximations
of integrals; here we refer to Wong (2001). Lemma A.3 can be derived by
following similar arguments in the proof of the Laplace method for the case
of boundary point in Wong (2001).
Lemma A.2 (Laplace method for interior point). Let t0 be an interior
point of T . Suppose the following conditions hold: (i) g(t) ∈ C(T ) and g(t0 ) 6=
0; (ii) h(t) ∈ C 2 (T ) and attains its unique minimum at t0 ; and (iii) ∇2 h(t0 )
is positive definite. Then as u → ∞,
Z
(2π)N/2
g(t)e−uh(t) dt = N/2
g(t0 )e−uh(t0 ) (1 + o(1)).
u (det ∇2 h(t0 ))1/2
T
Lemma A.3 (Laplace method for boundary point). Let t0 ∈ J ∈ ∂k T
with 0 ≤ k ≤ N − 1. Suppose that conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) in Lemma A.2
hold, and additionally ∇h(t0 ) = 0. Then as u → ∞,
Z
(2π)N/2 P{ZJ (t0 ) ∈ (−E(J))}
g(t)e−uh(t) dt =
g(t0 )e−uh(t0 ) (1 + o(1)),
uN/2 (det ∇2 h(t0 ))1/2
T
where ZJ (t0 ) is a centered (N − k)-dimensional Gaussian vector with covariance matrix (hij (t0 ))J1 ≤i,j≤JN−k , −E(J) = {x ∈ RN : −x ∈ E(J)}, and
the definitions of J1 , . . . , JN −k and E(J) are in (3.4).
Acknowledgements. We thank the anonymous referees and the Editor
for their insightful comments which have led to several improvements of this
manuscript.
REFERENCES
Adler, R. J. (1981). The Geometry of Random Fields. Wiley, Chichester. MR0611857
Adler, R. J. (2000). On excursion sets, tube formulas and maxima of random fields.
Ann. Appl. Probab. 10 1–74. MR1765203
Adler, R. J. and Taylor, J. E. (2007). Random Fields and Geometry. Springer, New
York. MR2319516
Adler, R. J. and Taylor, J. E. (2011). Topological Complexity of Smooth Random
Functions. Lecture Notes in Math. 2019. Springer, Heidelberg. MR2768175
Adler, R. J., Taylor, J. E. and Worsley, K. J. (2012). Applications of Random Fields
and Geometry: Foundations and Case Studies. In preparation.

THE MEAN EULER CHARACTERISTIC AND EXCURSION PROBABILITY 39
Azaı̈s, J.-M., Bardet, J.-M. and Wschebor, M. (2002). On the tails of the distribution
of the maximum of a smooth stationary Gaussian process. ESAIM Probab. Stat. 6 177–
184 (electronic). MR1943146
Azaı̈s, J.-M. and Delmas, C. (2002). Asymptotic expansions for the distribution of the
maximum of Gaussian random fields. Extremes 5 181–212. MR1965978
Azaı̈s, J.-M. and Wschebor, M. (2005). On the distribution of the maximum of a
Gaussian field with d parameters. Ann. Appl. Probab. 15 254–278. MR2115043
Azaı̈s, J.-M. and Wschebor, M. (2008). A general expression for the distribution of the
maximum of a Gaussian field and the approximation of the tail. Stochastic Process.
Appl. 118 1190–1218. MR2428714
Azaı̈s, J.-M. and Wschebor, M. (2009). Level Sets and Extrema of Random Processes
and Fields. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ. MR2478201
Cheng, D. (2013). The excursion probability of Gaussian and asymptotically Gaussian
random fields. Ph.D. thesis, Michigan State Univ., ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI.
MR3187373
Cramér, H. and Leadbetter, M. R. (1967). Stationary and Related Stochastic
Processes. Sample Function Properties and Their Applications. Wiley, New York.
MR0217860
Cuzick, J. (1977). A lower bound for the prediction error of stationary Gaussian processes.
Indiana Univ. Math. J. 26 577–584. MR0438452
Matheron, G. (1973). The intrinsic random functions and their applications. Adv. in
Appl. Probab. 5 439–468. MR0356209
Piterbarg, V. I. (1996a). Asymptotic Methods in the Theory of Gaussian Processes and
Fields. Translations of Mathematical Monographs 148. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence,
RI. MR1361884
Piterbarg, V. I. (1996b). Rice’s method for large excursions of Gaussian random fields.
Technical Report No. 478, Center for Stochastic Processes, Univ. North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Potthoff, J. (2010). Sample properties of random fields III: Differentiability. Commun.
Stoch. Anal. 4 335–353. MR2668626
Stein, M. L. (1999). Interpolation of Spatial Data: Some Theory for Kriging. Springer,
New York. MR1697409
Stein, M. L. (2013). On a class of space–time intrinsic random functions. Bernoulli 19
387–408. MR3037158
Sun, J. (1993). Tail probabilities of the maxima of Gaussian random fields. Ann. Probab.
21 34–71. MR1207215
Takemura, A. and Kuriki, S. (2002). On the equivalence of the tube and Euler characteristic methods for the distribution of the maximum of Gaussian fields over piecewise
smooth domains. Ann. Appl. Probab. 12 768–796. MR1910648
Taylor, J. E. and Adler, R. J. (2003). Euler characteristics for Gaussian fields on
manifolds. Ann. Probab. 31 533–563. MR1964940
Taylor, J., Takemura, A. and Adler, R. J. (2005). Validity of the expected Euler
characteristic heuristic. Ann. Probab. 33 1362–1396. MR2150192
Wong, R. (2001). Asymptotic Approximations of Integrals. Classics in Applied Mathematics 34. SIAM, Philadelphia, PA. MR1851050
Xiao, Y. (2009). Sample path properties of anisotropic Gaussian random fields. In
A Minicourse on Stochastic Partial Differential Equations (D. Khoshnevisan and
F. Rassoul-Agha, eds.). Lecture Notes in Math. 1962 145–212. Springer, Berlin.
MR2508776

40

D. CHENG AND Y. XIAO

Xue, Y. and Xiao, Y. (2011). Fractal and smoothness properties of space–time Gaussian
models. Front. Math. China 6 1217–1248. MR2862654
Yaglom, A. M. (1957). Some classes of random fields in n-dimensional space, related to
stationary random processes. Theory Probab. Appl. 2 273–320.
Department of Statistics
North Carolina State University
2311 Stinson Drive
Campus Box 8203
Raleigh, North Carolina 27695
USA
E-mail: cheng@stt.msu.edu

Department of Statistics and Probability
Michigan State University
619 Red Cedar Road
C-413 Wells Hall
East Lansing, Michigan 48824
USA
E-mail: xiao@stt.msu.edu

