1
$\begingroup$

Let $W$ be a symmetric $\alpha$-stable process with its generator $-(-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}$ for some $\alpha \in (0, 2]$ under $\mathbb P$. Let $\mathbb P^x$ be the probability measure induced by a process $$X(t) = x + t + W(t)$$ starting from $x$, and we set $$\hat \zeta = \inf\{t>0: X(t) \notin (-1, 1)\}, \quad \zeta = \inf\{t>0: X(t) \notin [-1, 1]\}.$$ My question is that

[Q.] Is $\mathbb P^x (\hat \zeta = \zeta) = 1$ valid for $\alpha \in (0, 1)$?

[remark]

The answer should be positive if $\alpha \ge 1$. In fact, one can use strong Markov property and time-shift operator to obtain $$\mathbb P^x(\hat \zeta = \zeta) = \mathbb P^x (\zeta \circ \theta_{\hat \zeta} = 0) = \mathbb E^x [ \mathbb P^{X(\hat \zeta)} (\zeta = 0)] = 1.$$ The last equality is true, since $\zeta = 0$ $\mathbb P^{x}$-a.s for all $x\notin (-1, 1)$ when $\alpha\ge 1$.

However, when $\alpha <1$, $x = -1$ is not regular to $[-1, 1]^c$, i.e. $\zeta>0$ holds almost surely in $\mathbb P^{-1}$. Therefore, the above argument does not work any more, unless $\mathbb P^x(X(\hat \zeta) = -1) = 0$, which is not clear to me.

Thanks.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

If $\alpha < 1$, then $X$ has bounded variation and positive drift, and therefore it does not creep downwards; see Theorem 7.11 in Kyprianou's book Introductory Lectures on Fluctuations of Lévy Processes with Applications. This means that $$\mathbb{P}^x(X(\tau_{-1}) \ne -1) = 1,$$ for $x > -1$, where $$\tau_{-1} = \inf \{t > 0 : X(t) \leqslant -1\}.$$ In particular $$\mathbb{P}^x(X(\hat\zeta) \ne -1) = 1,$$ and consequently $$\mathbb{P}^x(\hat\zeta = \zeta) = 1.$$


Edited: As pointed out by kenneth, the above argument uses $\tau_{-1}$ defined with the weak inequality, while Theorem 7.11 in Kyprianou's book has a strict inequality, that is, $$\tau_{-1^-} = \inf \{t > 0 : X(t) < -1\}.$$ Getting from there to here is not immediate, though!

The proof of Theorem 7.11(i) involves the following reasoning: outside of an event of probability zero, $X(\tau_{-1^-}) = -1$ if and only if $\inf_{s \in [0, t]} X(s) = -1$ for some $t > 0$, and the latter event has zero probability due to the fact that the descending ladder-height process has no drift (see Theorem 5.9 in the book).

The same argument actually works for $X(\tau_{-1}) = -1$, and the proof is in fact slightly simpler. Unfortunately, I do not have time now to write up the details.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks and your reply sounds solid to me, although I do not fully understand due to the lack of background knowledge. I will read the book and see if there is any further question. $\endgroup$
    – kenneth
    Commented May 17, 2018 at 7:11
  • $\begingroup$ I just went through briefly the related parts of the book. The book is written very clear and I fully understand your reply now. Thanks. $\endgroup$
    – kenneth
    Commented May 17, 2018 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ @kenneth: You're welcome! I like that book, too. $\endgroup$ Commented May 17, 2018 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ Just noticed that the conclusion of Theorem 7.11 applies to $\tau_{-1} = \inf\{t>0: X(t) < -1\}$. Does it still apply to the slightly different $\tau_{-1}$ defined in your reply? $\endgroup$
    – kenneth
    Commented May 18, 2018 at 2:23
  • $\begingroup$ @kenneth: Oh, this is a good point! This would indeed be possible if the drift were zero. With positive drift, this makes no difference, but the argument is slightly more complicated. I will edit the answer over the next few minutes. $\endgroup$ Commented May 18, 2018 at 10:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .