on the structure of max--stable processes schlather & de haan (2009)stationary max{stable elds...

Post on 06-Jul-2018

218 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

On the Structure of Max–Stable Processes

Stilian Stoev (joint work with Yizao Wang)University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Graybill VIII: Extreme Value AnalysisFort Collins, Colorado, June 24, 2009

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Some references:

• The talk is based on the work:Wang & S. (2009) On the structure and representations of max–stableprocesses, Preprint.

• Closely related works:de Haan & Pickands (1986) Stationary min-stable stochastic processes.Probab. Theory Relat. Fields, 72:477–492, 1986.Kabluchko, Schlather & de Haan (2009) Stationary max–stable fieldsassociated to negative definite functions, Preprint.Kabluchko (2009) Spectral representations of sum– and max–stableprocesses, Preprint.Wang & S. (2009) On the Association of Sum– and Max– StableProcesses, Preprint.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

There is a beautiful parallel world out there.

Sum–stable processes:Hardin (1982) On the spectral representation of symmetric stableprocesses. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 12:385–401, 1982.Rosinski (1995) On the structure of stationary stable processes. Ann.Probab., 23(3):1163–1187, 1995.Rosinski & Samorodnitsky (1996) Classes of mixing stable processes.Bernoulli, 2(4):365–377, 1996.Pipiras & Taqqu (2004) Stable stationary processes related to cyclicflows. Ann. Probab., 32(3A):2222–2260, 2004.Samorodnitsky (2005) Null flows, positive flows and the structure ofstationary symmetric stable processes. Ann. Probab., 33:1782–1803,2005.Our goal:

To catch up! Provide tools to achieve similar structural resultsfor max–stable processes.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

There is a beautiful parallel world out there.

Sum–stable processes:Hardin (1982) On the spectral representation of symmetric stableprocesses. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 12:385–401, 1982.Rosinski (1995) On the structure of stationary stable processes. Ann.Probab., 23(3):1163–1187, 1995.Rosinski & Samorodnitsky (1996) Classes of mixing stable processes.Bernoulli, 2(4):365–377, 1996.Pipiras & Taqqu (2004) Stable stationary processes related to cyclicflows. Ann. Probab., 32(3A):2222–2260, 2004.Samorodnitsky (2005) Null flows, positive flows and the structure ofstationary symmetric stable processes. Ann. Probab., 33:1782–1803,2005.Our goal: To catch up! Provide tools to achieve similar structural resultsfor max–stable processes.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

1 Preliminaries

2 Minimal representations

3 Continuous–Discrete Spectral Decomposition

4 Stationary Max–stable Processes and Flows

5 Classification via Co–spectral functions

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Preliminaries

Motivation: Consider heavy–tailed i.i.d. processes Y (i)t t∈T . If for some

an ∼ n1/α`(n) (α > 0), we have 1

an

∨1≤i≤n

Y(i)t

t∈T

f .d.d.−→ Xtt∈T , (n→∞),

then X = Xtt∈T is max–stable (α−Frechet).

Def The process X = Xtt∈T is max–stable (α−Frechet) if:

X (1)t ∨ · · · ∨ X

(n)t t∈T

d= n1/αXtt∈T ,

for all n ∈ N, where X (i) = X (i)t t∈T are independent copies of X and

where α > 0. The margins of X are then α−Frechet (α > 0), namely:

PXt ≤ x = exp−σαt x−α, x > 0,

with σαt > 0.Fine print: For simplicity, we focus on max–stable processes with α−Frechet marginals. By transforming the

margins, our theory applies to the most general definition of max–stable processes where the margins can be

extreme value distributions of different types.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Preliminaries

Motivation: Consider heavy–tailed i.i.d. processes Y (i)t t∈T . If for some

an ∼ n1/α`(n) (α > 0), we have 1

an

∨1≤i≤n

Y(i)t

t∈T

f .d.d.−→ Xtt∈T , (n→∞),

then X = Xtt∈T is max–stable (α−Frechet).Def The process X = Xtt∈T is max–stable (α−Frechet) if:

X (1)t ∨ · · · ∨ X

(n)t t∈T

d= n1/αXtt∈T ,

for all n ∈ N, where X (i) = X (i)t t∈T are independent copies of X and

where α > 0.

The margins of X are then α−Frechet (α > 0), namely:

PXt ≤ x = exp−σαt x−α, x > 0,

with σαt > 0.Fine print: For simplicity, we focus on max–stable processes with α−Frechet marginals. By transforming the

margins, our theory applies to the most general definition of max–stable processes where the margins can be

extreme value distributions of different types.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Preliminaries

Motivation: Consider heavy–tailed i.i.d. processes Y (i)t t∈T . If for some

an ∼ n1/α`(n) (α > 0), we have 1

an

∨1≤i≤n

Y(i)t

t∈T

f .d.d.−→ Xtt∈T , (n→∞),

then X = Xtt∈T is max–stable (α−Frechet).Def The process X = Xtt∈T is max–stable (α−Frechet) if:

X (1)t ∨ · · · ∨ X

(n)t t∈T

d= n1/αXtt∈T ,

for all n ∈ N, where X (i) = X (i)t t∈T are independent copies of X and

where α > 0. The margins of X are then α−Frechet (α > 0), namely:

PXt ≤ x = exp−σαt x−α, x > 0,

with σαt > 0.Fine print: For simplicity, we focus on max–stable processes with α−Frechet marginals. By transforming the

margins, our theory applies to the most general definition of max–stable processes where the margins can be

extreme value distributions of different types.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Spectral Representations

For an α−Frechet process (α > 0) X = Xtt∈T , we have:

(a) de Haan’s spectral representation:

Xt =∞∨

i=1

ft(Ui )/Γ1/αi , (t ∈ T )

for a Poisson point process (Γi ,Ui ) on (0,∞)× U with intensitydx × µ(du).(b) Extremal integral representation:

Xt =

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T )

for an α−Frechet random sup–measure Mα(du) on (U, µ).• The deterministic functions ft(u) ≥ 0 are called spectral functions of Xand satisfy: ∫

U

ft(u)αµ(du) <∞, (t ∈ T ).

Fine print: The measure space (U, µ) can be chosen ([0, 1], dx) if the process Xtt∈T is separable in

probability, in particular, continuous in probability when T is a separable metric space.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Spectral Representations

For an α−Frechet process (α > 0) X = Xtt∈T , we have:(a) de Haan’s spectral representation:

Xt =∞∨

i=1

ft(Ui )/Γ1/αi , (t ∈ T )

for a Poisson point process (Γi ,Ui ) on (0,∞)× U with intensitydx × µ(du).

(b) Extremal integral representation:

Xt =

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T )

for an α−Frechet random sup–measure Mα(du) on (U, µ).• The deterministic functions ft(u) ≥ 0 are called spectral functions of Xand satisfy: ∫

U

ft(u)αµ(du) <∞, (t ∈ T ).

Fine print: The measure space (U, µ) can be chosen ([0, 1], dx) if the process Xtt∈T is separable in

probability, in particular, continuous in probability when T is a separable metric space.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Spectral Representations

For an α−Frechet process (α > 0) X = Xtt∈T , we have:(a) de Haan’s spectral representation:

Xt =∞∨

i=1

ft(Ui )/Γ1/αi , (t ∈ T )

for a Poisson point process (Γi ,Ui ) on (0,∞)× U with intensitydx × µ(du).(b) Extremal integral representation:

Xt =

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T )

for an α−Frechet random sup–measure Mα(du) on (U, µ).

• The deterministic functions ft(u) ≥ 0 are called spectral functions of Xand satisfy: ∫

U

ft(u)αµ(du) <∞, (t ∈ T ).

Fine print: The measure space (U, µ) can be chosen ([0, 1], dx) if the process Xtt∈T is separable in

probability, in particular, continuous in probability when T is a separable metric space.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Spectral Representations

For an α−Frechet process (α > 0) X = Xtt∈T , we have:(a) de Haan’s spectral representation:

Xt =∞∨

i=1

ft(Ui )/Γ1/αi , (t ∈ T )

for a Poisson point process (Γi ,Ui ) on (0,∞)× U with intensitydx × µ(du).(b) Extremal integral representation:

Xt =

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T )

for an α−Frechet random sup–measure Mα(du) on (U, µ).• The deterministic functions ft(u) ≥ 0 are called spectral functions of Xand satisfy: ∫

U

ft(u)αµ(du) <∞, (t ∈ T ).

Fine print: The measure space (U, µ) can be chosen ([0, 1], dx) if the process Xtt∈T is separable in

probability, in particular, continuous in probability when T is a separable metric space.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Extremal Integrals

Let Mα be a random α−Frechet sup–measure on (U, µ). For simple functions f (u) =

∑ni=1 ai 1Ai (u), f (u) ≥ 0:∫e

U

f (u)Mα(du) :=∨

1≤i≤n

ai Mα(Ai ).

The def of∫e

UfdMα extends to all f ∈ Lα+(µ) and

P ∫e

U

fdMα ≤ x

= exp−‖f ‖αLα(µ)x−α, x > 0.

For f , g ∈ Lα+(µ):∫eU

(af ∨ bg)dMα = a

∫eU

fdMα ∨ b

∫eU

gdMα (max–linearity)

∫e

UfdMα and

∫eU

gdMα are independent if and only if fg = 0, (mod µ).

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Benefits: For any ft ∈ Lα+(µ), t ∈ T , we get a max–stable process:

Xt :=

∫eU

ftdMα

For the finite–dimensional distributions, we have:

PXti ≤ xi , 1 ≤ i ≤ d = P∫e

U

(∨1≤i≤d x−1i fti )dMα ≤ 1

= exp−∫

U

(∨f αti/xαi )dµ.

Examples:• (moving maxima)

Xt :=

∫eR

f (t − x)Mα(dx), t ∈ R,

with (U, µ) ≡ (R, dx) and f ∈ Lα+(dx). Smith’s storm processes are moving maxima.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Examples (cont’d)

• (mixed moving maxima) With (U, µ) = (R× V , dx × dν):

Xt :=

∫eR×V

f (t − x , v)Mα(dx , dv), f (x , v) ∈ Lα+(dx , dν).

A continuous–time version of the M3 processes.

• (doubly stochastic)Let (U, µ) be a probability space and ξt(u)≥ 0, t ∈ R a stochasticprocess over (U, µ). If Eµξαt <∞, then

Xt :=

∫eU

ξt(u)Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is an α−Frechet process on the probability space (Ω,F ,P). Schlater’s processes are doubly stochastic with particular ξt ’s.• (Brown–Resnick) With (U, µ) a probability space and wt(u)t∈R astandard Brownian motion on (U, µ):

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−α|t|/2Mα(du), t ∈ R.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Examples (cont’d)

• (mixed moving maxima) With (U, µ) = (R× V , dx × dν):

Xt :=

∫eR×V

f (t − x , v)Mα(dx , dv), f (x , v) ∈ Lα+(dx , dν).

A continuous–time version of the M3 processes. • (doubly stochastic)Let (U, µ) be a probability space and ξt(u)≥ 0, t ∈ R a stochasticprocess over (U, µ). If Eµξαt <∞, then

Xt :=

∫eU

ξt(u)Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is an α−Frechet process on the probability space (Ω,F ,P). Schlater’s processes are doubly stochastic with particular ξt ’s.

• (Brown–Resnick) With (U, µ) a probability space and wt(u)t∈R astandard Brownian motion on (U, µ):

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−α|t|/2Mα(du), t ∈ R.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Examples (cont’d)

• (mixed moving maxima) With (U, µ) = (R× V , dx × dν):

Xt :=

∫eR×V

f (t − x , v)Mα(dx , dv), f (x , v) ∈ Lα+(dx , dν).

A continuous–time version of the M3 processes. • (doubly stochastic)Let (U, µ) be a probability space and ξt(u)≥ 0, t ∈ R a stochasticprocess over (U, µ). If Eµξαt <∞, then

Xt :=

∫eU

ξt(u)Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is an α−Frechet process on the probability space (Ω,F ,P). Schlater’s processes are doubly stochastic with particular ξt ’s.• (Brown–Resnick) With (U, µ) a probability space and wt(u)t∈R astandard Brownian motion on (U, µ):

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−α|t|/2Mα(du), t ∈ R.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Max-linear Isometries

Consider a max–stable process:

Xt =

∫eU

ftdMα, (t ∈ T ).

Some Natural Questions:• How does the structure of the ft(u)’s determine the structure ofX = Xtt∈T and vice versa?

• Given another representation gt ⊂ Lα+(V , ν)

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

V

gtdMα

t∈T

,

what is the relationship between ftt∈T and gtt∈T ?Some Answers: For all ai ≥ 0, ti ∈ T , we have:

‖∨

ai fti‖αLα(µ) = ‖∨

ai gti‖αLα(ν).

• Thus, there exists a max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν), such

that I(ft) = gt , for all t ∈ T .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Max-linear Isometries

Consider a max–stable process:

Xt =

∫eU

ftdMα, (t ∈ T ).

Some Natural Questions:• How does the structure of the ft(u)’s determine the structure ofX = Xtt∈T and vice versa?• Given another representation gt ⊂ Lα+(V , ν)

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

V

gtdMα

t∈T

,

what is the relationship between ftt∈T and gtt∈T ?

Some Answers: For all ai ≥ 0, ti ∈ T , we have:

‖∨

ai fti‖αLα(µ) = ‖∨

ai gti‖αLα(ν).

• Thus, there exists a max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν), such

that I(ft) = gt , for all t ∈ T .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Max-linear Isometries

Consider a max–stable process:

Xt =

∫eU

ftdMα, (t ∈ T ).

Some Natural Questions:• How does the structure of the ft(u)’s determine the structure ofX = Xtt∈T and vice versa?• Given another representation gt ⊂ Lα+(V , ν)

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

V

gtdMα

t∈T

,

what is the relationship between ftt∈T and gtt∈T ?Some Answers: For all ai ≥ 0, ti ∈ T , we have:

‖∨

ai fti‖αLα(µ) = ‖∨

ai gti‖αLα(ν).

• Thus, there exists a max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν), such

that I(ft) = gt , for all t ∈ T .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Max-linear Isometries

Consider a max–stable process:

Xt =

∫eU

ftdMα, (t ∈ T ).

Some Natural Questions:• How does the structure of the ft(u)’s determine the structure ofX = Xtt∈T and vice versa?• Given another representation gt ⊂ Lα+(V , ν)

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

V

gtdMα

t∈T

,

what is the relationship between ftt∈T and gtt∈T ?Some Answers: For all ai ≥ 0, ti ∈ T , we have:

‖∨

ai fti‖αLα(µ) = ‖∨

ai gti‖αLα(ν).

• Thus, there exists a max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν), such

that I(ft) = gt , for all t ∈ T .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Def I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) is a max–linear isometry, if:

I(af ∨ bg) = aI(f ) ∨ bI(g), ∀f , g ∈ Lα+(U, µ), a, b ≥ 0.

and

‖I(f )‖αLα(ν) =

∫V

I(f )αdν =

∫U

f αdµ = ‖f ‖Lα(µ).

Conversely, any max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) yields anequivalent spectral represenation gt := I(ft) of the process X over (V , ν).

It is important to clarify the structure of max–linear isometries!

• In Wang & S., 2009, we extend results of Hardin, 1981/82 on thestructure of linear isometries to the max–linear case.

• The importance of these results for max–stable processes is bestunderstood via the notion of minimal representation.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Def I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) is a max–linear isometry, if:

I(af ∨ bg) = aI(f ) ∨ bI(g), ∀f , g ∈ Lα+(U, µ), a, b ≥ 0.

and

‖I(f )‖αLα(ν) =

∫V

I(f )αdν =

∫U

f αdµ = ‖f ‖Lα(µ).

Conversely, any max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) yields anequivalent spectral represenation gt := I(ft) of the process X over (V , ν).

It is important to clarify the structure of max–linear isometries!

• In Wang & S., 2009, we extend results of Hardin, 1981/82 on thestructure of linear isometries to the max–linear case.

• The importance of these results for max–stable processes is bestunderstood via the notion of minimal representation.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Def I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) is a max–linear isometry, if:

I(af ∨ bg) = aI(f ) ∨ bI(g), ∀f , g ∈ Lα+(U, µ), a, b ≥ 0.

and

‖I(f )‖αLα(ν) =

∫V

I(f )αdν =

∫U

f αdµ = ‖f ‖Lα(µ).

Conversely, any max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) yields anequivalent spectral represenation gt := I(ft) of the process X over (V , ν).

It is important to clarify the structure of max–linear isometries!

• In Wang & S., 2009, we extend results of Hardin, 1981/82 on thestructure of linear isometries to the max–linear case.

• The importance of these results for max–stable processes is bestunderstood via the notion of minimal representation.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Def I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) is a max–linear isometry, if:

I(af ∨ bg) = aI(f ) ∨ bI(g), ∀f , g ∈ Lα+(U, µ), a, b ≥ 0.

and

‖I(f )‖αLα(ν) =

∫V

I(f )αdν =

∫U

f αdµ = ‖f ‖Lα(µ).

Conversely, any max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) yields anequivalent spectral represenation gt := I(ft) of the process X over (V , ν).

It is important to clarify the structure of max–linear isometries!

• In Wang & S., 2009, we extend results of Hardin, 1981/82 on thestructure of linear isometries to the max–linear case.

• The importance of these results for max–stable processes is bestunderstood via the notion of minimal representation.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Def I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) is a max–linear isometry, if:

I(af ∨ bg) = aI(f ) ∨ bI(g), ∀f , g ∈ Lα+(U, µ), a, b ≥ 0.

and

‖I(f )‖αLα(ν) =

∫V

I(f )αdν =

∫U

f αdµ = ‖f ‖Lα(µ).

Conversely, any max–linear isometry I : Lα+(U, µ)→ Lα+(V , ν) yields anequivalent spectral represenation gt := I(ft) of the process X over (V , ν).

It is important to clarify the structure of max–linear isometries!

• In Wang & S., 2009, we extend results of Hardin, 1981/82 on thestructure of linear isometries to the max–linear case.

• The importance of these results for max–stable processes is bestunderstood via the notion of minimal representation.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Minimal spectral representations

Def The spectral representation ftt∈T ⊂ Lα+(U, µ) of X is minimal if:(i) (full support) suppft(u), t ∈ T = U (mod µ)(ii) (non-redundancy) For any measurable A ⊂ U, there exists

B ∈ ρft , t ∈ T ≡ σft/fs , t, s ∈ T,

such that µ(A∆B) = 0.

This def is identical to the one of Rosinski (1995) in the sum–stablecase, similar to Hardin (1982), and to the proper pistons of de Haan andPickands (1986).

• Why are minimal reps called ’minimal’?

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Minimal spectral representations

Def The spectral representation ftt∈T ⊂ Lα+(U, µ) of X is minimal if:(i) (full support) suppft(u), t ∈ T = U (mod µ)(ii) (non-redundancy) For any measurable A ⊂ U, there exists

B ∈ ρft , t ∈ T ≡ σft/fs , t, s ∈ T,

such that µ(A∆B) = 0.

This def is identical to the one of Rosinski (1995) in the sum–stablecase, similar to Hardin (1982), and to the proper pistons of de Haan andPickands (1986).

• Why are minimal reps called ’minimal’?

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Why ’minimal’?

The full–support condition is natural.

Consider the process

Xt :=

∫e[0,1]

t2 sin2(u)Mα(du) = t2Z ,

where Z =∫e

[0,1]sin2(u)Mα(du).

• This representation is clearly redundant! Note that

ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) = ∅, [0, 1] 6' B[0,1].

We have a natural, simpler representation:

Xtd=

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), with ft(u) = t2,

and trivial U = 0, and µ(du) = cδ0(du), c :=∫

[0,1]sin2α(x)dx .

• The ratio σ−algebra ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) captures best the minimal

information needed to represent the process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Why ’minimal’?

The full–support condition is natural. Consider the process

Xt :=

∫e[0,1]

t2 sin2(u)Mα(du) = t2Z ,

where Z =∫e

[0,1]sin2(u)Mα(du).

• This representation is clearly redundant! Note that

ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) = ∅, [0, 1] 6' B[0,1].

We have a natural, simpler representation:

Xtd=

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), with ft(u) = t2,

and trivial U = 0, and µ(du) = cδ0(du), c :=∫

[0,1]sin2α(x)dx .

• The ratio σ−algebra ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) captures best the minimal

information needed to represent the process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Why ’minimal’?

The full–support condition is natural. Consider the process

Xt :=

∫e[0,1]

t2 sin2(u)Mα(du) = t2Z ,

where Z =∫e

[0,1]sin2(u)Mα(du).

• This representation is clearly redundant! Note that

ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) = ∅, [0, 1] 6' B[0,1].

We have a natural, simpler representation:

Xtd=

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), with ft(u) = t2,

and trivial U = 0, and µ(du) = cδ0(du), c :=∫

[0,1]sin2α(x)dx .

• The ratio σ−algebra ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) captures best the minimal

information needed to represent the process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Why ’minimal’?

The full–support condition is natural. Consider the process

Xt :=

∫e[0,1]

t2 sin2(u)Mα(du) = t2Z ,

where Z =∫e

[0,1]sin2(u)Mα(du).

• This representation is clearly redundant! Note that

ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) = ∅, [0, 1] 6' B[0,1].

We have a natural, simpler representation:

Xtd=

∫eU

ft(u)Mα(du), with ft(u) = t2,

and trivial U = 0, and µ(du) = cδ0(du), c :=∫

[0,1]sin2α(x)dx .

• The ratio σ−algebra ρ(ft , t ∈ T ) captures best the minimal

information needed to represent the process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

What are the benefits of minimal representations?

Thm 1. (Wang & S.(2009)) Let ftt∈T ⊂ Lα+(µ) be a minimalmeasurable rep of X . If gtt∈T ⊂ Lα+(V , ν) is another measurable rep ofX , then:

gt(v) = h(v)ft(φ(v)), ν − a.e.

for some measurable h ≥ 0 and φ : V → U. The map φ is unique (modν).If gt is also minimal, then φ is bi–measurable, ν ∼ µ φ and

dµ φdν

(v) = hα(v) > 0.

Note: h and φ are independent of ’time’ t ∈ T point mappings.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Minimal representations with standardized support

Consider the setsSI,N = (0, I) ∪ 1, 2, · · · ,N,

where I ∈ 0, 1 and 0 ≤ N ≤ ∞: For example:

S1,3 = (0, 1) ∪ 1, 2, 3, S0,∞ = 1, 2, · · · , and S1,0 = (0, 1).

• Equip SI,N with the measure

λI,N (x) = dx +N∑

i=1

δi(dx).

Fine print: Every standard Lebesgue space is isomorphic to some (SI,N , λI,N ).

Def A minimal representation ftt∈T ⊂ Lα+(U, µ) is said to havestandardized support if, for some I,N: (U, µ) ≡ (SI,N , λI,N ).

Thm 2. (Wang & S., 2009) Every separable in probability α−Frechetprocess X has a minimal representation with standardized support:

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

SI,N

ftdMα

t∈T

.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Continuous–Discrete Decomposition

Consider an α−Frechet process X with the minimal rep of standardizedsupport:

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

SI,N

ftdMα

t∈T

.

By setting

X It :=

∫eSI,N∩(0,1)

ftdMα and X Nt :=

∫eSI,N∩N

ftdMα,

we obtain the continuous–discrete decomposition:

Xtt∈Td= X I

t ∨ X Nt t∈T .

The components X It and X N

t are independent.

Intuition: Suppose I = 1 and N > 0. Then,

X It =

∫e(0,1)

ftdMα and X Nt =

N∨i=1

ft(i)Zi ,

where Zi = Mαi are i.i.d. standard α−Frechet, independent of X It .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Continuous–Discrete Decomposition

Consider an α−Frechet process X with the minimal rep of standardizedsupport:

Xtt∈Td= ∫e

SI,N

ftdMα

t∈T

.

By setting

X It :=

∫eSI,N∩(0,1)

ftdMα and X Nt :=

∫eSI,N∩N

ftdMα,

we obtain the continuous–discrete decomposition:

Xtt∈Td= X I

t ∨ X Nt t∈T .

The components X It and X N

t are independent.Intuition: Suppose I = 1 and N > 0. Then,

X It =

∫e(0,1)

ftdMα and X Nt =

N∨i=1

ft(i)Zi ,

where Zi = Mαi are i.i.d. standard α−Frechet, independent of X It .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

X It and X N

t t∈T are called the continuous and discrete spectralcomponents of X .Fine print: One of them may be zero.

• The continous–discerete decomposition does not depend on therepresentation.Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let gtt∈T ⊂ Lα+(SI ′,N′ , λI ′,N′) be anotherminimal rep of X with standardized support, then (I ,N) ≡ (I ′,N ′),

X It

d= X I ′

t t∈T and X Nt

d= X N′

t t∈T ,

where X I ′

t :=∫e

SI,N∩(0,1)gtdMα and X N′

t =∫e

SI,N∩N gtdMα.

• Moreover, for the discrete component, we have that:

X Nt t∈T

d= N∨

i=1

φt(i)Zi

t∈T

,

for some unique set of functions φt(i), 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

X It and X N

t t∈T are called the continuous and discrete spectralcomponents of X .Fine print: One of them may be zero.

• The continous–discerete decomposition does not depend on therepresentation.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let gtt∈T ⊂ Lα+(SI ′,N′ , λI ′,N′) be anotherminimal rep of X with standardized support, then (I ,N) ≡ (I ′,N ′),

X It

d= X I ′

t t∈T and X Nt

d= X N′

t t∈T ,

where X I ′

t :=∫e

SI,N∩(0,1)gtdMα and X N′

t =∫e

SI,N∩N gtdMα.

• Moreover, for the discrete component, we have that:

X Nt t∈T

d= N∨

i=1

φt(i)Zi

t∈T

,

for some unique set of functions φt(i), 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

X It and X N

t t∈T are called the continuous and discrete spectralcomponents of X .Fine print: One of them may be zero.

• The continous–discerete decomposition does not depend on therepresentation.Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let gtt∈T ⊂ Lα+(SI ′,N′ , λI ′,N′) be anotherminimal rep of X with standardized support, then (I ,N) ≡ (I ′,N ′),

X It

d= X I ′

t t∈T and X Nt

d= X N′

t t∈T ,

where X I ′

t :=∫e

SI,N∩(0,1)gtdMα and X N′

t =∫e

SI,N∩N gtdMα.

• Moreover, for the discrete component, we have that:

X Nt t∈T

d= N∨

i=1

φt(i)Zi

t∈T

,

for some unique set of functions φt(i), 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components

Consider the spectrally discrete component of the process Xtt∈T :

X Nt =

N∨i=1

φt(i)Zi , (t ∈ T ),

for i.i.d. standard α−Frechet Zi ’s.• The functions t 7→ φt(i), 1 ≤ i ≤ N are unique up to permutation ofthe indices. The φt(i)’s are the discrete principal components of X .

• Not all sequences of positive functions can be discrete principalcomponents.Fine print: Prop: (Wang & S., 2009) A countable set of functions φ := φt (i) ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ N can be

discrete principal components of an α−Frechet process if and only if, φ is a minimal representation. Namely, if (i)PNi=1 φ

αt (i) <∞ and (ii) ρ(φt (·), t ∈ T ) = 21,··· ,N.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components

Consider the spectrally discrete component of the process Xtt∈T :

X Nt =

N∨i=1

φt(i)Zi , (t ∈ T ),

for i.i.d. standard α−Frechet Zi ’s.• The functions t 7→ φt(i), 1 ≤ i ≤ N are unique up to permutation ofthe indices. The φt(i)’s are the discrete principal components of X .• Not all sequences of positive functions can be discrete principalcomponents.Fine print: Prop: (Wang & S., 2009) A countable set of functions φ := φt (i) ≥ 0, 1 ≤ i ≤ N can be

discrete principal components of an α−Frechet process if and only if, φ is a minimal representation. Namely, if (i)PNi=1 φ

αt (i) <∞ and (ii) ρ(φt (·), t ∈ T ) = 21,··· ,N.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components: Applications and Implications

Applications: Given a spectrally discrete statistical model, estimate:

The order N, if finite. The (unique) principal component functions t 7→ φt(i), for 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a measurable and stationaryα−Frechet process. Then, the spectrally discrete component of X iseither zero or trivial, i.e.

X Nt t∈R

d= Zt∈R,

for some random variable Z .• Certainly, with i.i.d. α−Frechet Zi ’s:

Xt :=∨i∈Z

f (t − i)Zi , (t ∈ Z),

is a non–trivial stationary and spectrally discrete process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components: Applications and Implications

Applications: Given a spectrally discrete statistical model, estimate: The order N, if finite.

The (unique) principal component functions t 7→ φt(i), for 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a measurable and stationaryα−Frechet process. Then, the spectrally discrete component of X iseither zero or trivial, i.e.

X Nt t∈R

d= Zt∈R,

for some random variable Z .• Certainly, with i.i.d. α−Frechet Zi ’s:

Xt :=∨i∈Z

f (t − i)Zi , (t ∈ Z),

is a non–trivial stationary and spectrally discrete process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components: Applications and Implications

Applications: Given a spectrally discrete statistical model, estimate: The order N, if finite. The (unique) principal component functions t 7→ φt(i), for 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a measurable and stationaryα−Frechet process. Then, the spectrally discrete component of X iseither zero or trivial, i.e.

X Nt t∈R

d= Zt∈R,

for some random variable Z .• Certainly, with i.i.d. α−Frechet Zi ’s:

Xt :=∨i∈Z

f (t − i)Zi , (t ∈ Z),

is a non–trivial stationary and spectrally discrete process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components: Applications and Implications

Applications: Given a spectrally discrete statistical model, estimate: The order N, if finite. The (unique) principal component functions t 7→ φt(i), for 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a measurable and stationaryα−Frechet process. Then, the spectrally discrete component of X iseither zero or trivial, i.e.

X Nt t∈R

d= Zt∈R,

for some random variable Z .

• Certainly, with i.i.d. α−Frechet Zi ’s:

Xt :=∨i∈Z

f (t − i)Zi , (t ∈ Z),

is a non–trivial stationary and spectrally discrete process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Discrete Principal Components: Applications and Implications

Applications: Given a spectrally discrete statistical model, estimate: The order N, if finite. The (unique) principal component functions t 7→ φt(i), for 1 ≤ i ≤ N.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a measurable and stationaryα−Frechet process. Then, the spectrally discrete component of X iseither zero or trivial, i.e.

X Nt t∈R

d= Zt∈R,

for some random variable Z .• Certainly, with i.i.d. α−Frechet Zi ’s:

Xt :=∨i∈Z

f (t − i)Zi , (t ∈ Z),

is a non–trivial stationary and spectrally discrete process.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Stationary Max–Stable Processes and Flows

Let now Xt =∫e

Uft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ R) be stationary.

As in the sum–stable case, if ftt∈T is minimal:

ft(u) =(dµ φt

dµ(u))1/α

f0(φt(u)),

where φt : U → U is a non–singular flow:

(i) φt+s = φt φs , ∀t, s ∈ R, (ii) φ0 = id, and (iii) µ φt ∼ µ, ∀t ∈ R.

Intuition: by stationarity and Thm 1:

ft+s(u) = ht+s(u)f0(φt+s(u)) = ht(u)fs(φt(u)) = ht(u)hs(u)f0(φt(φs(u))).

• The flow φtt∈R associated with X is unique (does not depend on theminimal rep), up to flow–equivalence. As in the sum–stable case, the structure of φtt∈R’s motivatesclassifications of the X ’s.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Stationary Max–Stable Processes and Flows

Let now Xt =∫e

Uft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ R) be stationary.

As in the sum–stable case, if ftt∈T is minimal:

ft(u) =(dµ φt

dµ(u))1/α

f0(φt(u)),

where φt : U → U is a non–singular flow:(i) φt+s = φt φs , ∀t, s ∈ R, (ii) φ0 = id, and (iii) µ φt ∼ µ, ∀t ∈ R.

Intuition: by stationarity and Thm 1:

ft+s(u) = ht+s(u)f0(φt+s(u)) = ht(u)fs(φt(u)) = ht(u)hs(u)f0(φt(φs(u))).

• The flow φtt∈R associated with X is unique (does not depend on theminimal rep), up to flow–equivalence. As in the sum–stable case, the structure of φtt∈R’s motivatesclassifications of the X ’s.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Stationary Max–Stable Processes and Flows

Let now Xt =∫e

Uft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ R) be stationary.

As in the sum–stable case, if ftt∈T is minimal:

ft(u) =(dµ φt

dµ(u))1/α

f0(φt(u)),

where φt : U → U is a non–singular flow:(i) φt+s = φt φs , ∀t, s ∈ R, (ii) φ0 = id, and (iii) µ φt ∼ µ, ∀t ∈ R.

Intuition: by stationarity and Thm 1:

ft+s(u) = ht+s(u)f0(φt+s(u)) = ht(u)fs(φt(u)) = ht(u)hs(u)f0(φt(φs(u))).

• The flow φtt∈R associated with X is unique (does not depend on theminimal rep), up to flow–equivalence. As in the sum–stable case, the structure of φtt∈R’s motivatesclassifications of the X ’s.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Stationary Max–Stable Processes and Flows

Let now Xt =∫e

Uft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ R) be stationary.

As in the sum–stable case, if ftt∈T is minimal:

ft(u) =(dµ φt

dµ(u))1/α

f0(φt(u)),

where φt : U → U is a non–singular flow:(i) φt+s = φt φs , ∀t, s ∈ R, (ii) φ0 = id, and (iii) µ φt ∼ µ, ∀t ∈ R.

Intuition: by stationarity and Thm 1:

ft+s(u) = ht+s(u)f0(φt+s(u)) = ht(u)fs(φt(u)) = ht(u)hs(u)f0(φt(φs(u))).

• The flow φtt∈R associated with X is unique (does not depend on theminimal rep), up to flow–equivalence.

As in the sum–stable case, the structure of φtt∈R’s motivatesclassifications of the X ’s.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Stationary Max–Stable Processes and Flows

Let now Xt =∫e

Uft(u)Mα(du), (t ∈ R) be stationary.

As in the sum–stable case, if ftt∈T is minimal:

ft(u) =(dµ φt

dµ(u))1/α

f0(φt(u)),

where φt : U → U is a non–singular flow:(i) φt+s = φt φs , ∀t, s ∈ R, (ii) φ0 = id, and (iii) µ φt ∼ µ, ∀t ∈ R.

Intuition: by stationarity and Thm 1:

ft+s(u) = ht+s(u)f0(φt+s(u)) = ht(u)fs(φt(u)) = ht(u)hs(u)f0(φt(φs(u))).

• The flow φtt∈R associated with X is unique (does not depend on theminimal rep), up to flow–equivalence. As in the sum–stable case, the structure of φtt∈R’s motivatesclassifications of the X ’s.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Hopf Decomposition

Let φ : U → U be non–singular bijection.• B ⊂ U is a wandering set for φ if φk (B) ∩ φj (B) = ∅, (∀k 6= j ∈ Z).

Hopf decomposition: We have U = C ∪ D, where:(i) C ∩ D = ∅ and C and D are φ−invariant.(ii) C has no wandering sub–set of positive measure (for φ).(iii) D = ∪k∈Zφ

k (B) for some wandering set B ⊂ D.

For a measurable flow φtt∈R, we have U = Ct ∪ Dt , where

Ct = C and Dt = D , ( mod µ).

Characterization: for any strictly positive f ∈ Lα+(U, µ),

C =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt =∞

and D =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt <∞

with ft(u) =(

dµφt

dµ (u))1/α

f (φt(u)).

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Hopf Decomposition

Let φ : U → U be non–singular bijection.• B ⊂ U is a wandering set for φ if φk (B) ∩ φj (B) = ∅, (∀k 6= j ∈ Z).Hopf decomposition: We have U = C ∪ D, where:(i) C ∩ D = ∅ and C and D are φ−invariant.(ii) C has no wandering sub–set of positive measure (for φ).(iii) D = ∪k∈Zφ

k (B) for some wandering set B ⊂ D.

For a measurable flow φtt∈R, we have U = Ct ∪ Dt , where

Ct = C and Dt = D , ( mod µ).

Characterization: for any strictly positive f ∈ Lα+(U, µ),

C =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt =∞

and D =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt <∞

with ft(u) =(

dµφt

dµ (u))1/α

f (φt(u)).

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Hopf Decomposition

Let φ : U → U be non–singular bijection.• B ⊂ U is a wandering set for φ if φk (B) ∩ φj (B) = ∅, (∀k 6= j ∈ Z).Hopf decomposition: We have U = C ∪ D, where:(i) C ∩ D = ∅ and C and D are φ−invariant.(ii) C has no wandering sub–set of positive measure (for φ).(iii) D = ∪k∈Zφ

k (B) for some wandering set B ⊂ D.

For a measurable flow φtt∈R, we have U = Ct ∪ Dt , where

Ct = C and Dt = D , ( mod µ).

Characterization: for any strictly positive f ∈ Lα+(U, µ),

C =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt =∞

and D =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt <∞

with ft(u) =(

dµφt

dµ (u))1/α

f (φt(u)).

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Hopf Decomposition

Let φ : U → U be non–singular bijection.• B ⊂ U is a wandering set for φ if φk (B) ∩ φj (B) = ∅, (∀k 6= j ∈ Z).Hopf decomposition: We have U = C ∪ D, where:(i) C ∩ D = ∅ and C and D are φ−invariant.(ii) C has no wandering sub–set of positive measure (for φ).(iii) D = ∪k∈Zφ

k (B) for some wandering set B ⊂ D.

For a measurable flow φtt∈R, we have U = Ct ∪ Dt , where

Ct = C and Dt = D , ( mod µ).

Characterization: for any strictly positive f ∈ Lα+(U, µ),

C =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt =∞

and D =

u :

∫R

ft(u)αdt <∞

with ft(u) =(

dµφt

dµ (u))1/α

f (φt(u)).

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Conservative–Dissipative Decomposition

Classification of stationary α–Frechet processes via the underlying flowstructure:

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a stationary α–Frechet processwith spectral representation ftt∈R ∈ Lα+(U, du). Then,

Xtt∈Rd=

X Ct ∨ X D

t

t∈R

with X Ct =

∫C

ftdMα and X Dt =

∫D

ftdMα. This decomposition is uniquein distribution.

We say X Ct t∈R is generated by a conservative flow and X D

t t∈R is

generated by a dissipative flow.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Conservative–Dissipative Decomposition

Classification of stationary α–Frechet processes via the underlying flowstructure:

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a stationary α–Frechet processwith spectral representation ftt∈R ∈ Lα+(U, du). Then,

Xtt∈Rd=

X Ct ∨ X D

t

t∈R

with X Ct =

∫C

ftdMα and X Dt =

∫D

ftdMα. This decomposition is uniquein distribution.

We say X Ct t∈R is generated by a conservative flow and X D

t t∈R is

generated by a dissipative flow.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Conservative–Dissipative Decomposition

Classification of stationary α–Frechet processes via the underlying flowstructure:

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let Xtt∈R be a stationary α–Frechet processwith spectral representation ftt∈R ∈ Lα+(U, du). Then,

Xtt∈Rd=

X Ct ∨ X D

t

t∈R

with X Ct =

∫C

ftdMα and X Dt =

∫D

ftdMα. This decomposition is uniquein distribution.

We say X Ct t∈R is generated by a conservative flow and X D

t t∈R is

generated by a dissipative flow.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Mixed Moving Maxima Characterization

As in the sum–stable case, the purely dissipative processes are preciselythe mixed moving maxima:

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) X is generated by a dissipative flow, iff

Xtt∈Rd= ∫e

R×V

g(t + x , v)Mα(dx , dv)

t∈R,

for some g(t, v) ∈ Lα+(R× V , dx × ν(dv)).• Samorodnitsky’s positive–null decomposition also translates to themax–stable case.Fine print: Recently Kabluchko 2009, has independently obtaineddecompositions of max–stable processes by association with thesum–stable setting.

Moreover, he has shown that a max–stable X is ergodic if and only if it is

generated by a null flow. An exact parallel to Samorodnitsky 2005.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Mixed Moving Maxima Characterization

As in the sum–stable case, the purely dissipative processes are preciselythe mixed moving maxima:Thm (Wang & S., 2009) X is generated by a dissipative flow, iff

Xtt∈Rd= ∫e

R×V

g(t + x , v)Mα(dx , dv)

t∈R,

for some g(t, v) ∈ Lα+(R× V , dx × ν(dv)).

• Samorodnitsky’s positive–null decomposition also translates to themax–stable case.Fine print: Recently Kabluchko 2009, has independently obtaineddecompositions of max–stable processes by association with thesum–stable setting.

Moreover, he has shown that a max–stable X is ergodic if and only if it is

generated by a null flow. An exact parallel to Samorodnitsky 2005.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Mixed Moving Maxima Characterization

As in the sum–stable case, the purely dissipative processes are preciselythe mixed moving maxima:Thm (Wang & S., 2009) X is generated by a dissipative flow, iff

Xtt∈Rd= ∫e

R×V

g(t + x , v)Mα(dx , dv)

t∈R,

for some g(t, v) ∈ Lα+(R× V , dx × ν(dv)).• Samorodnitsky’s positive–null decomposition also translates to themax–stable case.

Fine print: Recently Kabluchko 2009, has independently obtaineddecompositions of max–stable processes by association with thesum–stable setting.

Moreover, he has shown that a max–stable X is ergodic if and only if it is

generated by a null flow. An exact parallel to Samorodnitsky 2005.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Mixed Moving Maxima Characterization

As in the sum–stable case, the purely dissipative processes are preciselythe mixed moving maxima:Thm (Wang & S., 2009) X is generated by a dissipative flow, iff

Xtt∈Rd= ∫e

R×V

g(t + x , v)Mα(dx , dv)

t∈R,

for some g(t, v) ∈ Lα+(R× V , dx × ν(dv)).• Samorodnitsky’s positive–null decomposition also translates to themax–stable case.Fine print: Recently Kabluchko 2009, has independently obtaineddecompositions of max–stable processes by association with thesum–stable setting.

Moreover, he has shown that a max–stable X is ergodic if and only if it is

generated by a null flow. An exact parallel to Samorodnitsky 2005.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Mixed Moving Maxima Characterization

As in the sum–stable case, the purely dissipative processes are preciselythe mixed moving maxima:Thm (Wang & S., 2009) X is generated by a dissipative flow, iff

Xtt∈Rd= ∫e

R×V

g(t + x , v)Mα(dx , dv)

t∈R,

for some g(t, v) ∈ Lα+(R× V , dx × ν(dv)).• Samorodnitsky’s positive–null decomposition also translates to themax–stable case.Fine print: Recently Kabluchko 2009, has independently obtaineddecompositions of max–stable processes by association with thesum–stable setting.

Moreover, he has shown that a max–stable X is ergodic if and only if it is

generated by a null flow. An exact parallel to Samorodnitsky 2005.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Generalized Brown–Resnick Processes

Thm (Kabluchko, Schlather and de Haan, 2009) Let wt(u)t∈R be zeromean, continuous path, Gaussian process with stationary increments onthe prob space (U, µ). Then the max–stable process

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−ασ2t /2Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is stationary.

• When is X = Xtt∈R dissipative? By our results: X is dissipative, if and only if∫

Reαwt (u)−α2σ2

t /2dt <∞ (µ− a.e.). (1)

• If wt is the fractional Brownian motion, then X is dissipative andhence a mixed moving maxima.Fine print: (1) follows from the law of the iterated logarithm of Oodaira, 1972.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Generalized Brown–Resnick Processes

Thm (Kabluchko, Schlather and de Haan, 2009) Let wt(u)t∈R be zeromean, continuous path, Gaussian process with stationary increments onthe prob space (U, µ). Then the max–stable process

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−ασ2t /2Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is stationary.• When is X = Xtt∈R dissipative?

By our results: X is dissipative, if and only if∫R

eαwt (u)−α2σ2t /2dt <∞ (µ− a.e.). (1)

• If wt is the fractional Brownian motion, then X is dissipative andhence a mixed moving maxima.Fine print: (1) follows from the law of the iterated logarithm of Oodaira, 1972.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Generalized Brown–Resnick Processes

Thm (Kabluchko, Schlather and de Haan, 2009) Let wt(u)t∈R be zeromean, continuous path, Gaussian process with stationary increments onthe prob space (U, µ). Then the max–stable process

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−ασ2t /2Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is stationary.• When is X = Xtt∈R dissipative? By our results: X is dissipative, if and only if∫

Reαwt (u)−α2σ2

t /2dt <∞ (µ− a.e.). (1)

• If wt is the fractional Brownian motion, then X is dissipative andhence a mixed moving maxima.Fine print: (1) follows from the law of the iterated logarithm of Oodaira, 1972.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Generalized Brown–Resnick Processes

Thm (Kabluchko, Schlather and de Haan, 2009) Let wt(u)t∈R be zeromean, continuous path, Gaussian process with stationary increments onthe prob space (U, µ). Then the max–stable process

Xt :=

∫eU

ewt (u)−ασ2t /2Mα(du), t ∈ R,

is stationary.• When is X = Xtt∈R dissipative? By our results: X is dissipative, if and only if∫

Reαwt (u)−α2σ2

t /2dt <∞ (µ− a.e.). (1)

• If wt is the fractional Brownian motion, then X is dissipative andhence a mixed moving maxima.Fine print: (1) follows from the law of the iterated logarithm of Oodaira, 1972.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

A bonus and an open problem

• From Kabluchko, Schlather & de Haan, 2009, we have that ageneralized Brown–Resnick process is dissipative if:

lim|t|→∞

(wt − σ2t /2) = −∞. (2)

By combining with our NSC, we get the bonus:Thm Consider a Gaussian wt process with zero mean, continuouspaths, and stationary increments. The condition (2) implies

µ

u :

∫R

ewt (u)−σ2t /2dt <∞

= 1.

Open question: (To me!) Is there a zero–one law:

µ

u :

∫R

ewt (u)−σ2t /2dt <∞

= 1 or 0.

for the wt in the above Thm.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

A bonus and an open problem

• From Kabluchko, Schlather & de Haan, 2009, we have that ageneralized Brown–Resnick process is dissipative if:

lim|t|→∞

(wt − σ2t /2) = −∞. (2)

By combining with our NSC, we get the bonus:Thm Consider a Gaussian wt process with zero mean, continuouspaths, and stationary increments. The condition (2) implies

µ

u :

∫R

ewt (u)−σ2t /2dt <∞

= 1.

Open question: (To me!) Is there a zero–one law:

µ

u :

∫R

ewt (u)−σ2t /2dt <∞

= 1 or 0.

for the wt in the above Thm.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Co–spectral Functions

Let now T be a separable metric space, equipped with a Borel measure λ.Consider the α−Frechet process X = Xtt∈T :

Xt :=

∫eU

f (t, u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T ),

where (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) is measurable.

• Focus on the co–spectral functions:

t 7→ f (t, u) ∈ L0+(T , λ), for fixed u ∈ U.

• Can show that the co–spectral functions of X do not depend on therepresentation (up to rescaling)!Fine print: If (U, µ) is standard Lebesgue, then X is measurable, if and only if, (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) has a

measurable modification.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Co–spectral Functions

Let now T be a separable metric space, equipped with a Borel measure λ.Consider the α−Frechet process X = Xtt∈T :

Xt :=

∫eU

f (t, u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T ),

where (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) is measurable.• Focus on the co–spectral functions:

t 7→ f (t, u) ∈ L0+(T , λ), for fixed u ∈ U.

• Can show that the co–spectral functions of X do not depend on therepresentation (up to rescaling)!Fine print: If (U, µ) is standard Lebesgue, then X is measurable, if and only if, (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) has a

measurable modification.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Co–spectral Functions

Let now T be a separable metric space, equipped with a Borel measure λ.Consider the α−Frechet process X = Xtt∈T :

Xt :=

∫eU

f (t, u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T ),

where (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) is measurable.• Focus on the co–spectral functions:

t 7→ f (t, u) ∈ L0+(T , λ), for fixed u ∈ U.

• Can show that the co–spectral functions of X do not depend on therepresentation (up to rescaling)!

Fine print: If (U, µ) is standard Lebesgue, then X is measurable, if and only if, (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) has a

measurable modification.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Co–spectral Functions

Let now T be a separable metric space, equipped with a Borel measure λ.Consider the α−Frechet process X = Xtt∈T :

Xt :=

∫eU

f (t, u)Mα(du), (t ∈ T ),

where (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) is measurable.• Focus on the co–spectral functions:

t 7→ f (t, u) ∈ L0+(T , λ), for fixed u ∈ U.

• Can show that the co–spectral functions of X do not depend on therepresentation (up to rescaling)!Fine print: If (U, µ) is standard Lebesgue, then X is measurable, if and only if, (t, u) 7→ f (t, u) has a

measurable modification.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Co–spectral Functions: Classification

Let P be a positive (measurable) cone in L0+(T , λ), i.e. cP ⊂ P.

Consider the partition of U = A ∪ B into disjoint components:

A := u ∈ U : f (·, u) ∈ P and B := U \ A = u ∈ U : f (·, u) 6∈ P.

This yields the decomposition:

Xtt∈Td= X A

t ∨ X Bt t∈T , (3)

where

X At :=

∫eA

f (t, u)Mα(du) and X Bt :=

∫eB

f (t, u)Mα(du)

are two independent processes.

• The decomposition (3) does not depend on the choice of themeasurable rep f (t, u)(t,u)∈T×U .

Idea of proof: WLOG suppose that f (t, u)t∈T is minimal and letg(t, v)t∈T ⊂ Lα+(V , ν) is another measurable rep of X = Xtt∈T .

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Then, by Thm 1:

g(t, v) = h(v)f (t, φ(v)), where h(v) ≥ 0.

Since P is a cone,

g(·, v) ∈ P ⇔ f (·, φ(v)) ∈ P,

which shows that the corresponding partition of V is:

V = A ∪ B := φ−1(A) ∪ φ−1(B)

A change of variables, yields: ∫eA

ftdMα

t∈T

d= ∫e

eA gtdMα

t∈T

,

completing the proof.

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Applications

Corollary: Let

∫e

U

f (t, u)Mα(du) d=

∫eV

g(t, v)Mα(dv).

Then, given a cone P ⊂ L0+(T ),

f (·, u) ∈ P, a.e. if and only if g(·, v) ∈ P, a.e.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let (U, µ) ≡ (Rd , dx) and f , g ∈ Lα+(Rd ).Consider the moving maxima random fields

Xt :=

∫eRd

f (t − u)Mα(du) and Yt :=

∫eRd

g(t − u)Mα(du).

Then,

Xtt∈Rdd= Ytt∈Rd , iff g(·) = f (·+ τ),

for some τ ∈ Rd .

Proof: Consider the positive cone: P := cf (·+ τ), c > 0, τ ∈ R. We

have g(·+ x) ∈ P, for almost all x!

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Applications

Corollary: Let

∫e

U

f (t, u)Mα(du) d=

∫eV

g(t, v)Mα(dv).

Then, given a cone P ⊂ L0+(T ),

f (·, u) ∈ P, a.e. if and only if g(·, v) ∈ P, a.e.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let (U, µ) ≡ (Rd , dx) and f , g ∈ Lα+(Rd ).Consider the moving maxima random fields

Xt :=

∫eRd

f (t − u)Mα(du) and Yt :=

∫eRd

g(t − u)Mα(du).

Then,

Xtt∈Rdd= Ytt∈Rd , iff g(·) = f (·+ τ),

for some τ ∈ Rd .

Proof: Consider the positive cone: P := cf (·+ τ), c > 0, τ ∈ R. We

have g(·+ x) ∈ P, for almost all x!

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Applications

Corollary: Let

∫e

U

f (t, u)Mα(du) d=

∫eV

g(t, v)Mα(dv).

Then, given a cone P ⊂ L0+(T ),

f (·, u) ∈ P, a.e. if and only if g(·, v) ∈ P, a.e.

Thm (Wang & S., 2009) Let (U, µ) ≡ (Rd , dx) and f , g ∈ Lα+(Rd ).Consider the moving maxima random fields

Xt :=

∫eRd

f (t − u)Mα(du) and Yt :=

∫eRd

g(t − u)Mα(du).

Then,

Xtt∈Rdd= Ytt∈Rd , iff g(·) = f (·+ τ),

for some τ ∈ Rd .

Proof: Consider the positive cone: P := cf (·+ τ), c > 0, τ ∈ R. We

have g(·+ x) ∈ P, for almost all x!

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Thank you!

Preliminaries Minimality Continuous/Discrete Stationarity and Flows Co–spectrum

Some References

Brown, B. M. & Resnick, S. I. (1977), ‘Extreme values of independentstochastic processes’, J. Appl. Probability 14(4), 732–739.Hardin (1982) On the spectral representation of symmetric stableprocesses. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 12:385–401, 1982.de Haan, L. & Pickands III, J. (1986), ‘Stationary min–stable stochasticprocesses’, Prob. Theo. Rel. Fields 72(4), 477–492.Kabluchko, Schlather & de Haan (2009) Stationary max–stable fieldsassociated to negative definite functions, Preprint.Kabluchko (2009) Spectral representations of sum– and max–stableprocesses, Preprint.Rosinski (1995) On the structure of stationary stable processes. Ann.Probab., 23(3):1163–1187, 1995.Samorodnitsky (2005) Null flows, positive flows and the structure ofstationary symmetric stable processes. Ann. Probab., 33:1782–1803,2005.Wang & S. (2009) On the structure and representations of max–stableprocesses, Preprint.Wang & S. (2009) On the Association of Sum– and Max– StableProcesses, Preprint.

top related