Extremes of $L^p$-norm of Vector-valued Gaussian processes with Trend
Long Bai

TL;DR
This paper derives the exact tail asymptotics of the $L^p$ norm of Gaussian vector processes with trend, considering both stationary and non-stationary cases, with applications in engineering, insurance, and statistics.
Contribution
It provides the first precise tail asymptotics for the $L^p$ norm of Gaussian vector processes with trend, including sum and chi-square processes, in both stationary and non-stationary settings.
Findings
Derived exact tail asymptotics for Gaussian vector processes with trend.
Analyzed both locally stationary and non-stationary processes.
Applicable to sum and chi-square Gaussian processes with trend.
Abstract
Let be a Gaussian vector process and be a continuous function. The asymptotics of distribution of , the norm for Gaussian finite-dimensional vector, have been investigated in numerous literatures. In this contribution we are concerned with the exact tail asymptotics of with trend over . Both scenarios that is locally stationary and non-stationary are considered. Important examples include and chi-square processes with trend, i.e., . These results are of interest in applications in engineering, insurance and statistics, etc.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsStochastic processes and financial applications · Financial Risk and Volatility Modeling · Statistical Methods and Inference
Extremes of -norm of Vector-valued Gaussian processes with Trend
Long Bai
Long Bai, Department of Actuarial Science, University of Lausanne
UNIL-Dorigny, 1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Abstract: Let be a Gaussian vector process and be a continuous function. The asymptotics of distribution of , the norm for Gaussian finite-dimensional vector, have been investigated in numerous literatures. In this contribution we are concerned with the exact tail asymptotics of with trend over . Both scenarios that is locally stationary and non-stationary are considered. Important examples include and chi-square processes with trend, i.e., . These results are of interest in applications in engineering, insurance and statistics, etc.
Keywords: Tail asymptotics; -norm; vector-valued Gaussian process; fractional Brownian motion; Pickands constant; Piterbarg constant.
AMS Classification: Primary 60G15; secondary 60G70
1. Introduction
In engineering sciences, extreme values of non-linear functions of multivariate Gaussian processes are of interest in dealing with the safety of structures, see [34] and the references therein. Probabilistic structural analysis to answer the question is: what is the probability that a certain mechanical (or other) structure will survive when it is subject to a random load. The load is then usually defined by some -dimensional vector process , and one seeks the probability that exceeds some more or less well-defined safe region, which is specific for the structure as
[TABLE]
where the time-dependent safety region is defined by
[TABLE]
with some continuous function and , the norm, i.e.,
[TABLE]
in the space .
Assume that where are independent copies of a centered Gaussian process which has continuous trajectories, variance function and correlation function and
[TABLE]
In the framework of (1), set , then we can rewrite (1) as
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and hereafter, we call the norm process.
When , for a positive constant , as in the convention is called the chi process when and the chi-square process when .
Further, as the Gaussian processes, we can introduce the stationary, locally-stationary, and non-stationary norm processes according to the stationary, locally-stationary, and non-stationary properties of , respectively.
The investigate of
[TABLE]
is initiated by the studies of high excursions of envelope of a Gaussian process, see e.g., [9] and generalized in [33, 35, 36]. When is stationary with and
[TABLE]
[2, 3] develop the Berman’s approach in [10] to obtain an asymptotic behavior of large deviation probabilities of the stationary chi-square processes.
Further, if there exists unique satisfies and
[TABLE]
where and are positive constants related to , the tail asymptotic behavior of the non-stationary and are investigated in [41] and [25], respectively, under the application of the so-called ”double-sum method” in [42].
Some recent contributions are focused on more general scenarios of chi process and chi-square process with , i.e.,
[TABLE]
where the continuous function is generally considered as a trend or a drift.
When are non-stationary Gaussian processes, , the non-stationary chi processes with trend, and , the non-stationary chi-square processes with trend, are studied in [26] and [37], respectively.
When are locally-stationary Gaussian processes, [38] obtains the extreme of the supremum of with trend, see, e.g., [11, 28] for more details about locally stationary Gaussian processes.
Considering both the locally stationary and non-stationary norm processes, the contribution of this paper concerns an exact asymptotic behavior of large deviation probabilities for with , constant and a continuous function, which contains the aforementioned results.
Organisation of the rest of the paper: In Section 2, the notation and some preliminaries are given. Our main results are displayed in Section 3. Following in Section 4 are two applications related to insurance and statistics. Finally, we present the proofs in Section 5 and several lemmas in Section 6.
2. Notation and preliminaries
First we introduce some notation, starting with the well-known Pickands constant defined by
[TABLE]
where are constants and is a standard fractional Brownian motion (fBm) with Hurst index Further, define for non-negative continuous function.
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The exact values of are known for and , namely,
[TABLE]
See [39, 40, 15, 21, 14, 22, 16, 43, 18, 20, 13, 7] for various properties of and .
Through this paper means asymptotic equivalence when the argument tends to [math] or . We notice that denotes the tail distribution function of an random variable and .
For the norm process in (3) and a continuous function , we shall investigate the asymptotics of
[TABLE]
with a constant. As in [25, 41], for , using the duality property of norm we find
[TABLE]
where is a centered Gaussian field defined on cylinder with
[TABLE]
where if , if and if .
Lemma 2.1**.**
*On , attains its maximum at:
(i) for at points where ( stands at the i-th position), ( stands at the i-th position), ;
(ii) for at points on , ;
(iii) for at points , where*
[TABLE]
( we take all possible combinations of signs ”+” and ”-” ), where .
The proof can be easily carried out by method of Lagrangian multipliers or referring to [25] [Lemma 3.1].
Next by [31], we have the following lemma.
Lemma 2.2**.**
For the norm process in (3), if for some , then we have that as
[TABLE]
with the convention and the same as in Lemma 2.1.
3. Extremes of norm processes with trend
In this section, recall that in (3) is the norm process and ’s are independent copies of with continuous trajectories, variance functions and correlation functions .
3.1. Extremes of non-stationary norm processes with trend
As in [6], if is non-stationary, we introduce the following assumptions:
- (i)
attains its maximum on at the unique point and
[TABLE]
for some positive constants .
- (ii)
for some constants and
Further, we introduce a bounded measurable trend function which satisfies
- (iii)
for some constants .
Theorem 3.1**.**
If assumptions (i)-(iii) are satisfied, then for in (2) and in Lemma 2.1, we have as
[TABLE]
where , , , and if , if .
Remarks 3.2**.**
i) In Theorem 3.1, if we assume that , we get the extremes of centered non-stationary norm processes i.e.,
[TABLE]
ii) Following the similar arguments as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, the result in Theorem 3.1 still holds for if and if .
3.2. Extremes of locally stationary norm processes with trend
If is locally stationary, as in [6], we shall suppose that:
- (iv)
where are positive continuous function on .
- (v)
Before giving the scenarios with trend, we consider the extremes of the centered locally stationary norm processes.
Theorem 3.3**.**
Assume that , i.e., unit variance and covariance function satisfies assumptions (iv) and (v). Then we have for
[TABLE]
where is the same as in Lemma 2.1.
Theorem 3.4**.**
*Assume that , i.e., unit variance and correlation function satisfies assumptions (iv) and (v). Assume that is a continuous function which attains its maximum at a unique point satisfying assumption (iii) for some constants . Further, set and and is the same as in Lemma 2.1.
If , then we have as *
[TABLE]
*where and if , if .
If , then we have*
[TABLE]
If , then we have
[TABLE]
Remark 3.5**.**
By the proof, we notice that for the case in Theorem 3.4, the result always holds for any continuous function . When , the result holds for any bounded function .
Example 3.6**.**
For in (3) with the independent fractional Brownian motions, we have as
[TABLE]
where and is the same as in Lemma 2.1
Following example is a special case of Theorem 3.4, which is corresponded with [38] [Theorem 2.1].
Example 3.7**.**
In Theorem 3.4, assume that , and is a continuous function, then we have
[TABLE]
4. Applications
4.1. Ruin probability of a risk model
In theoretical insurance modelling a surplus process can be defined by
[TABLE]
see [23], where is the initial reserve, is the rate of premium and the stochastic process denotes the aggregate claims process. See [45, 17, 27, 8, 6, 5] for more studies on related risk models. Here we investigate
[TABLE]
where is the same as in (2) and are independent fractional Brownian motions. can be considered as the sum of independent claims or payments until time . The corresponding ruin probability over a finite-time horizon is defined as
[TABLE]
We present next approximation of this ruin probability.
Proposition 4.1**.**
We have as
[TABLE]
Besides in risk modelling, the norm processes, especially the chi-square processes, are also widely utilized in hypothesis testing, see [12, 44] and the reference there. Next we give an example.
4.2. The Ornstein-Uhlenbeck chi-square process in Quantitative Trait Locus detection
A Quantitative Trait Locus (QTL) denotes a gene with quantitative effect on a trait. The method used by most of geneticists in order to detect a QTL on a chromosome, is the Interval Mapping proposed by [32]. Using the Haldane distance and modelling in [29], each chromosome is represented by a segment . The distance on is called the genetic distance. At each location , using the ”genome information” brought by genetic markers, a likelihood ratio test (LRT) is performed, testing the presence of a QTL at this position. [4] prove that when the number of genetic markers and the number of progenies tends to infinity, the limiting process of the LRT process is an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck chi-square process under the null hypothesis of the absence of QTL on the interval . In order to take decision about the presence of a QTL on , we need to calculate the critical value for the supremum of an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck chi-square process, i.e.,
[TABLE]
where the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck chi-square process is
[TABLE]
and are independent identically stationary Gaussian processes with covariance function given by
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.2**.**
We have as
[TABLE]
5. Proofs
During the following proofs, are some positive constants which can be different from line by line and for interval we denote
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 3.1: We first present the proof for the case .
Set , with and for large enough
[TABLE]
with the same as in (5) which is a centered Gaussian field.
We have for some small and large enough
[TABLE]
We first give the upper bounds of and .
Set and . Then by Borell inequality as in [1] and Lemma 2.2 for large
[TABLE]
where and
[TABLE]
By assumptions (i) and (iii), we know that for some
[TABLE]
hold for when small enough, then
[TABLE]
Denote with . By assumption (ii), we have that
[TABLE]
holds for and . Thus it follows from [42] [Theorem 8.1], (5) and Lemma 2.2 that
[TABLE]
Thus by (12), (5) and the fact that for positive, we have
[TABLE]
which combined with (11) imply
[TABLE]
Now we focus on the asymptotic of , as .
Denote for any and some
[TABLE]
Case 1: . For large enough, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
In the view of Lemma 6.2 and (13), we have that for some ,
[TABLE]
as where . Similarly, we derive that
[TABLE]
Moreover,
[TABLE]
where . By Lemma 6.3, we have
[TABLE]
Combing (20)-(23) with (19), we obtain
[TABLE]
Case 2: . We consider that for large enough,
[TABLE]
Using (33) of Lemma 6.2 with replaced by and (14), we have that
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
Moreover, by Lemma 6.2,
[TABLE]
Inserting (26), (27), and (28) into (25), we have
[TABLE]
Case 3: . Obviously,
[TABLE]
For any , when large enough. By Lemma 6.2 and the fact that , we obtain
[TABLE]
Together with (30), we get
[TABLE]
Consequently, we have the results according to (18), (24), (29) and (31).
For and , we just need to replace as and . Thus we complete the proof.
Proof of Theorem 3.3: For any and , set
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
By Lemma 6.2
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
Further, by Lemma 6.2
[TABLE]
Similarly, by Lemma 6.2
[TABLE]
For any
[TABLE]
for where is related to . Then by Lemma 6.1
[TABLE]
where is a large constant. Finally by Lemma 6.3 for large enough and small enough
[TABLE]
Thus the claim follows.
Proof of Theorem 3.4: Through this proof, denote and the same as in the proof of Theorem 3.1.
When , in the proof of Theorem 3.1, if we take and , then all argumentations still hold and the results follow.
When , for any constant , we define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and by Theorem 3.3
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
Further, we have
[TABLE]
where .
Then for by Lemma 6.1
[TABLE]
Thus, we have
[TABLE]
When , set and . Since is a continuous function, we have . Further, since when ,
[TABLE]
holds for any . Hence, by Theorem 3.3
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The result follows.
6. Appendix
In this section, we give several lemmas which are used in the proofs of the theorems.
Lemma 6.1**.**
let be an centered -valued vector process with independent marginals, which have continuous samples, unit variances and correlation functions satisfying assumption (v). Then for and large enough
[TABLE]
where are some constant.
Proof of Lemma 6.1: By assumption (v) and the continuity of , for some we have
[TABLE]
holds for any . Set where with . Since is a center Gaussian fields, we have further
[TABLE]
for any . By Borell inequality,
[TABLE]
where is some constant such that
[TABLE]
hence the claim follows.
Lemma 6.2**.**
let be an centered -valued vector process with independent marginals, which have continuous samples, unit variances and correlation functions satisfying assumption (iv). Set and a family of index sets and satisfying that
[TABLE]
If is a nonnegative continuous function with and is the same as in (2), then we have that for some constants and
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
If for some small enough , we have for some constant
[TABLE]
*where , as .
Specially, if , we have*
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Proof of Lemma 6.2: Step 1: First we give the proof of (33). When , set . Then we have
[TABLE]
By [6] [Lemma 4.1], we have
[TABLE]
Since for any
[TABLE]
then by Borell inequality, we have
[TABLE]
Then (33) with is follow.
When , set which is a centered Gaussian field.
Then we have
[TABLE]
Set . Next we prove that as
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
we just need to show as
[TABLE]
In fact, since
[TABLE]
by Borell inequality, we have
[TABLE]
where .
When , by Lemma 2.1, we know attains the maximum over at several discrete points, so we can choose small enough such that with the union of non-overlapping compact neighborhoods of or in Lemma 2.1. Then as mentioned in [42] or [24][Lemma 2.1]
[TABLE]
where is the number of the maximum point of .
Case 1) and . It is enough to find the asymptotics of single term in (36), for instance, for a point . In a neighborhood of , we have
[TABLE]
hence the fields can be represented as
[TABLE]
which is defined in where
[TABLE]
is a small neighborhood of . On , the variance
[TABLE]
of attains its maximum at where is a interior point of a set . We can write the following Taylor expansion for
[TABLE]
where is a non-negative define matrix with elements
[TABLE]
We have the following expansion for the correlation function of
[TABLE]
There exists a non-singular matrix such that is diagonal, and set the diagonal is . Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then set , defined on a set . We know that the point is a interior point of . Then the proof follows by similar arguments as in the proof of [42] [Theorem 8.2]. Consequently, we get
[TABLE]
where we use the fact in [30] that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Case 2) and . Again we need to find the asymptotics of single term in (36), to wish namely for a maximum point , of variance . hence the fields can be represented as
[TABLE]
which is defined in where
[TABLE]
is a small neighborhood of . On , the variance
[TABLE]
of attains its maximum at where is a interior point of a set . We can write the following Taylor expansion for
[TABLE]
and the following expansion for the correlation function of
[TABLE]
Then the proof again follows by similar arguments as in the proof of [42] [Theorem 8.2]. Consequently, we get
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Case 3) . By Lemma 2.1, we know that attains its maximum (equal to 1) over only at points on . The fields again can be represented as
[TABLE]
which is defined in where
[TABLE]
On , the variance
[TABLE]
of attains its maximum at . Furthermore, following the arguments as in [41] we conclude that and the correlation function of have the following asymptotic expansions:
[TABLE]
and the following expansion for the correlation function of
[TABLE]
Then the proof follows by similar arguments as in the proof of [37] [Theorem 6.1] with the case . Consequently, we get
[TABLE]
Step 2: Next we proceed to the proof of (34). Setting , then for any with and when large enough
[TABLE]
holds for some .
Then we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We notice that by assumption (iv)
[TABLE]
For and , when , (34) follows with the same arguments as in Step 1.
When , for and we use the similar arguments as in in Step 1 with .
When ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
When ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
When ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We get that as
[TABLE]
Thus (34) follows.
Further, if letting in (34), we get (35).
Lemma 6.3**.**
Assume that Gaussian vector process with independent marginals which have unit variances, correlation functions is the same as in Lemma 6.2. Further, set a family of index sets and satisfying that
[TABLE]
Let be such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Then we can find a constant such that for all and ,
[TABLE]
where , and
[TABLE]
Proof of Lemma 6.3: Through this proof, are some positive constant.
When , set . We have by [19][Theorem 3.1] for large enough
[TABLE]
When , set which is a centered Gaussian field and .
Below for , denote
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
as where the last second inequality follows from Borell inequality and the fact that
[TABLE]
Similarly, we have
[TABLE]
Then we just need to focus on
[TABLE]
We split into sets of small diameters , where
[TABLE]
Further, we see that with
[TABLE]
where means are identical or adjacent, and means are neither identical nor adjacent. Denote the distance of two set as
[TABLE]
if , then there exists some small positive constant (independent of ) such that . Next we estimate . For any
[TABLE]
where .
When is sufficiently large for , with we have
[TABLE]
for some . Therefore, it follows from the Borell inequality that
[TABLE]
with
[TABLE]
Now we consider . Similar to the argumentation as in Step1 of the proof of Lemma 6.2. we set and with . Since for , we have
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
Borrowing the arguments of the proof in [42] [Lemma 6.3] we show that
[TABLE]
Moreover, since when ,
[TABLE]
When ,
[TABLE]
When ,
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Set is a stationary Gaussian field with unit variance and correlation function
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Then following the similar argumentation as in [26], we have
[TABLE]
where when and when . Thus we have
[TABLE]
Thus we complete the proof.
Proof of Eaxmple 3.6: Note that the variance function of attain its maximum over at and
[TABLE]
For , by Theorem 3.1 with we get the result.
Proof of Proposition 4.1: Note that the variance function of attains its maximum over at and (37) is satisfied. Since
[TABLE]
for , by Theorem 3.1 and Remarks 3.2 ii) with and we get the result.
Proof of Proposition 4.2: Note that are stationary with unit variance and correlation function satisfies
[TABLE]
By Theorem 3.3 with and we get the result.
Acknowledgement:Thanks to the referees for their comments and suggestions which significantly improved the manuscript. Thanks to Prof. Enkelejd Hashorva for his suggestions. Thanks to Swiss National Science Foundation Grant no. 200021-166274.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R.J. Adler and J.E. Taylor. Random fields and geometry . Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer, New York, 2007.
- 2[2] J.M.P. Albin. On extremal theory for stationary processes. Ann. Probab. , 18(1):92–128, 1990.
- 3[3] J.M.P. Albin. Extremes and crossings for differentiable stationary processes with application to Gaussian processes in ℝ m superscript ℝ 𝑚 \mathbb{R}^{m} and hilbert space. Stochastic Process. Appl. , 42:119–148, 1992.
- 4[4] J. M. Azaïs, C. Delmas, and C. E. Rabier. Likelihood ratio test process for quantitative trait locus detection. Statistics , 48:787–801, 2014.
- 5[5] L. Bai. Asymptotics of Parisian ruin of Brownian motion risk model over an infinite-time horizon. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, in press , 2018.
- 6[6] L. Bai, K. Dȩbicki, E. Hashorva, and L. Ji. Extremes of threshold-dependent Gaussian processes. Science China Mathematics , 2018.
- 7[7] L. Bai, K. Dȩbicki, E. Hashorva, and L. Luo. On generalised Piterbarg constants. Methodology and Computing in Applied Probability , 20:137–164, 2018.
- 8[8] L. Bai and L. Luo. Parisian ruin of the Brownian motion risk model with constant force of interest. Statistics and Probability Letters , 120:34–44, 2017.
