MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $\xi$ be a Poisson Random Measure of intensity $\mu$ (informally $\mathbb E\xi = \mu$).

(For $f \ge 0$, say) when does $\xi f = \infty?$ Kallenberg (Foundations of Modern Probabilility) claims the following:

  • $\xi f$ exists iff $\mu(|f| \wedge 1) < \infty$.

It's certainly a basic result on Poisson Random Measure that $\mu(|f| \wedge 1) < \infty$ implies $\xi f < \infty$ a.s.. However, he doesn't actually seem to prove the converse, and I'm not sure what he means by the converse either. It could be either of

  • $\mathbb P(\xi f < \infty) = 1$ implies $\mu(|f| \wedge 1) < \infty$
  • $\mathbb P(\xi f < \infty) > 0$ implies $\mu(|f| \wedge 1) < \infty$

although perhaps these two are equivalent by Kolmogorov's 0-1 law.

Can anyone shed any light on how to prove the converse, or point me to a better reference for Poisson Random Measure?

share|cite|improve this question
Yes, those two will be zero by the zero-one law as you state. For the converse you can use the moment generating or characteristic function. Sorry, not able to give a full answer right now – George Lowther Feb 1 '10 at 15:25
up vote 4 down vote accepted

As I mentioned in my comment, you can prove the statement and its converse by looking at the moment generating function. Supposing that f ≥ 0 and λ > 0 is a real number, the following is true for a Poisson point measure ξ with Eξ = μ,

$$\mathbb{E}\left[e^{-\lambda\xi f}\right]=\exp\left(-\mu\left(1-e^{-\lambda f}\right)\right).$$

You can calculate the probability that ξf is finite from this using monotone convergence,

$$\mathbb{P}\left(\xi f \lt \infty\right)=\lim_{\lambda\downarrow 0}\exp\left(-\mu\left(1-e^{-\lambda f}\right)\right).$$

If μ(f∧1) <∞ then (1-e-λf) ≤ f∧1 for all λ ≤ 1, so dominated convergence gives μ(1-e-λf) → 0 as λ →0. So, E[e-λξf] → 1. This gives ξf < ∞ almost surely. Now, for the converse statement: If μ(f∧1) = ∞ then, using (1-e-λf) ≥ ½ λ(f∧1) for λ ≤ 1 shows that μ(1-e-λf) = ∞. So, E[e-λξf]=0, giving ξf = ∞ almost surely.

And, yes, the Kolmogorov-zero one law does indeed imply that ξf < ∞ with probability 0 or 1. Splitting the space up into a countable sequence of measurable sets Sn on which both μ and f are bounded, then we want to know if the sum ∑nξ(1Snf) of independent random variables is finite, which is a tail event.

Looking at my copy of Kallenberg I see that the statement you give, and I have just proven above, is Lemma 12.13. Precisely quoting his proof:

If ξ|f| < ∞ a.s. then μ(|f|∧1) < ∞ by Lemma 12.2. The converse implication was established in the proof of the same lemma.

Looking at his Lemma 12.2, it is the statement of the moment generating function which I just used. Like you say, it doesn't seem like he does establish the converse implication at all. However, it is a relatively simple step using my argument above.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.