## arxiv: v1 [math.pr] 10 Jan 2017

arXiv:1701.02625v1 [math.PR] 10 Jan 2017 STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS EWA DAMEK AND BARTOSZ KOLODZIEJEK Abstract. W...
Author: Meghan Smith
arXiv:1701.02625v1 [math.PR] 10 Jan 2017

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS EWA DAMEK AND BARTOSZ KOLODZIEJEK Abstract. We study the stochastic recursions Xn = An Xn−1 + Bn and Xn = max{An Xn−1 , Bn }, where (An , Bn ) ∈ R × R is an i.i.d sequence of random vectors and X0 is an arbitrary initial distribution independent of (An , Bn )n≥1 . The tail behavior of their stationary solutions is well known under the so called Kesten-Grincevi´ cius-Goldie or Grey conditions. We describe the tail when E|A|α = 1 and the tail of B is regularly varying with index −α < 0.

1. Introduction 1.1. Results. Let (An , Bn ) ∈ R × R be a sequence of i.i.d (independent identically distributed) random vectors. Given X0 independent of (An , Bn )n≥1 we study stochastic recursions (1)

Xn = An Xn−1 + Bn ,

n≥1

and (2)

Xn = max{An Xn−1 , Bn },

n ≥ 1.

In (2), we assume that An ≥ 0 a.s. Under mild contractivity hypotheses, Xn converges in law to a random variable R satisfying (in distribution) d

R = AR + B and d

R = max{AR, B}, respectively, where (A, B) is a generic element of the sequence (An , Bn )n≥1 and (A, B), R are independent. We assume that E|A|α = 1 for some α > 0,

(3) (4)

B

has a regularly varying right tail of order − α,

E|B|α = ∞

and we describe the right tail of R (Theorems 4.2, 4.4, 4.9). In the most simpliﬁed version, our basic result says that if P(A ≥ 0) = 1 and there exists α > 0 such that EAα = 1, ρ = EAα log A < ∞, xα P(B > x) = L(x), where L is a slowly varying function, then (see Section 4 for the rest of assumptions) Z EB α 10 x) ∼ ρ 0 t αρ

Here and henceforth, f (x) ∼ g(x) means that f (x)/g(x) → 1 as x → ∞. Neither aﬃne (1) nor extremal (2) recursions have R x been considered yet under assumptions (3) and (4) simultaneously and appearance of the function 0 L(t)t−1 dt is probably the most interesting phenomenon here. To obtain (5) we prove a renewal theorem that essentially generalizes existing ones, Theorem 3.1. 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 60H25; secondary 60E99. Key words and phrases. perturbed random walk; perpetuity; regular variation. 1

2

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

For the recursion (1) we do not restrict ourselves to positive A and (5) is obtained in full generality. We ﬁrst assume that A ≥ 0 a.s. and then, in Section 4.5, we show how to reduce “signed A” to “non-negative A”. The method is quite general and it is applicable beyond our particular assumptions. Finally, if A ≥ 0 a.s., we obtain the second order asymptotics in (5) that is, as x → ∞, Z 1 x L(t) α dt = O(max{L(x), 1}), (6) x P(R > x) − ρ 0 t see Theorems 4.2 and 4.8. For (6) in the case of the perpetuity (1) some more regularity of the law of A is assumed.

1.2. History and motivation. P(R > x) converges to zero when x tends to inﬁnity and a natural problem consists of describing the rate at which this happens. Depending on the assumptions on (A, B) we may obtain light-tailed R (all the moments exist) or a heavy tailed R (certain moments of |R| are inﬁnite). The ﬁrst case occurs when P(|A| ≤ 1) = 1 and B has the moment generating function in some neighborhood of the origin, see Goldie and Gr¨ ubel , Hitczenko and Wesolowski , Kolodziejek [2016b]. The second one f.e. when P(|A| > 1) > 0 but E log |A| < 0. In this case the tails of the perpetuity (1) and the maximum of perturbed random walk (2) are comparable (see Enriquez et al. ).1 Then the tail behaviour of R may be determined by A or B alone, or by both of them. The ﬁrst case happens when the tail of B is regularly varying with index −α < 0 and E|A|α < 1 and E|A|α+ε < ∞ for some ε > 0. Then (7)

P(R > x) ∼ cP(B > x),

Grey . When E|A| = 1, E|B| < ∞ and E|A|a log+ |A| < ∞ then α

(8)

α

P(R > x) ∼ cx−α

and it is A that plays the role. When E|A|a log+ |A| = ∞ an extra slowly varying function l appears in (8) i.e. (9)

P(R > x) ∼ cl(x)x−α .

(9) was proved by Kevei  for A ≥ 0 but applying our approach to signed A we may conclude (9) also there. In view of all that it is natural to go a step further and to ask what happens when at the same time A and B contribute signiﬁcantly to the tail i.e. E|A|α = 1, E|B|α = ∞ and the tail of B is regularly varying at ∞ with index −α < 0. Then we may expect that the tail is essentially bigger then that of B and it is what we obtain, see (5). 1.3. Perturbed random walk. There is a somehow related problem, where contributions to asymptotics of some statistic may come from one of two ingredients alone or from both of them. Let (ξn , ηn )n≥1 be a sequence of i.i.d. two-dimensional random vectors with generic copy (ξ, η). Consider the maximum of so-called perturbed random walk, Mn = max1≤k≤n {Sk−1 + ηk }, where (Sn )n≥1 is a random walk with i.i.d. increments ξk , Eξk = 0 and Eξk2 < ∞, S0 = 0. The aim is to study convergence in distribution of an Mn for some suitable chosen deterministic sequence (an )n≥1 . There are essentially three distinct cases. In the ﬁrst case Eη 2 < ∞, Sn dominates the perturbation and the limit of an Mn coincides with the limit of an max1≤k≤n {Sk−1 }. In the second one, the tail P(η > x) is regularly varying with index γ ∈ (−2, 0), perturbation ηn dominates the random walk and the limit coincides with the limit of an max1≤k≤n {ηk }. For above see [Hitczenko and Wesolowski, 2011, Theorem 3]. In the most interesting, third case, that is, if 1For a discussion of the tail asymptotics of perturbed random walks we refer to Araman and Glynn , Palmowski and Zwart .

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

3

P(η > x) ∼ cx−2 for some c > 0, both random walk and the perturbation have comparable contributions, see Wang , Iksanov and Pilipenko  along with generalization to functional limit theorems. 1.4. Renewal theorems. To prove the tail asymptotics of R we denote f (x) = eαx P(R > ex ) and we write a renewal equation for f as in Goldie . Then Z f (x) = ψ(x − z)dH(z) R

for some ψ, when H is a renewal function. The main diﬃculty is that ψ is not integrable so the usual approach via the classical renewal theorem doesn’t work. There are variants of it when ψ is not necessarily in L1 Iksanov , but asymptotically equivalent to a monotone function. This doesn’t help us either. We are able to replace ψ(x) by L(ex ) and to show that Z L(ex−z )dH(z) (10) R

is the main term giving the asymptotics but still the behavior of (10) for a generic slowly varying function L remains to be determined. This is done in Section 3, where we prove renewal Theorems 3.1, 3.2 that are interesting on their own. 2. Preliminaries

2.1. Regular variation. A measurable function f : (0, ∞) → (0, ∞) is called regularly varying with index ρ, |ρ| < ∞, if for all λ > 0, (11)

lim

x→∞

f (λx) = λρ . f (x)

The class of such functions will be denoted R(ρ). If f ∈ R(0) then f is called a slowly varying function. The class of slowly varying functions plays a fundamental part in the Karamata’s theory of regular variability, since if f ∈ R(ρ), then f (x) = xρ L(x) for some L ∈ R(0). Below, we introduce some basic properties of the class R(0) that, later on, will be essential. If L ∈ R(0) is bounded away from 0 and ∞ on every compact subset of [0, ∞), then for any δ > 0 there exists A = A(δ) > 1 such that (Potter’s Theorem, see e.g Buraczewski et al. , Appendix B) o n L(y) δ −δ , x, y > 0. ≤ A max (y/x) , (y/x) L(x)

Assume that L ∈ R(0) is locally bounded on (X, ∞) for some X > 0. Then, for α > 0 and x > X, one has Z x L(t) (12) dt ∼ α−1 xα L(x) tα t X and this result remains true also for α = 0 in the sens that R x L(t) dt X t (13) →∞ as x → ∞. L(x) Rx e Deﬁne L(x) := X L(t) t dt. Then, for any λ > 0, Z λ e e L(xt) dt L(λx) − L(x) (14) = → log λ, L(x) 1 L(x) t

since the convergence in (11) is locally uniform [Bingham et al., 1989, Theorem 1.5.2]. Moreover, since ! e e L(λx) L(x) − 1 → log λ as x → ∞, e L(x) L(x)

4

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

e is slowly varying. In the theory of regular variation, L e is called the de Haan function. (13) implies that L

2.2. Renewal theory. Let (Zk )k≥1 be the sequence of independent copies of random variable Z with EZ > 0. We write Sn = Z1 + . . . + Zn , n ≥ 1 and S0 = 0. The measure deﬁned by ∞ X H(B) := P(Sn ∈ B), B ∈ B(R) n=0

is called the renewal measure of (Sn )n≥1 . Then, H(x) := H((−∞, x]) is called the renewal function. EZ > 0 implies that H(x) is ﬁnite for all x ∈ R. We say that the distribution of Z is arithmetic if its support is contained in dZ for some d ∈ R. Equivalently, the distribution of Z is arithmetic if and only if there exists 0 6= t ∈ R such that fZ (t) = 1, where fZ is the characteristic function of the distribution of Z. The law of Z is strongly non-lattice if the Cramer’s condition is satisﬁed, that is, lim sup|t|→∞ |fZ (t)| < 1. A fundamental result of renewal theory is the Blackwell’s theorem: if the distribution of Z is nonarithmetic, then for any t > 0, t as x → ∞. H(x + t) − H(x) → EZ Under additional assumptions we know more about the asymptotic behaviour of H (see Stone ). If for some r > 0 one has P(Z ≤ x) = o(erx ) as x → −∞, then there is some r1 > 0 such that (15)

H(x) = o(er1 x )

as x → −∞.

Exact asymptotics of H(x) as x → −∞ in the presence of α > 0 such that Ee−αX = 1 are given in Kolodziejek [2016a]. If for some r > 0, P(Z > x) = o(e−rx ) as x → ∞ and the distribution of Z is strongly non-lattice, then x EZ 2 H(x) = (16) + o(e−rx ) as x → ∞. + EZ 2(EZ)2 Note that in the non-arithmetic case, since H(x + t) − H(x) is convergent as x → ∞ we have C = supx (H(x + 1) − H(x)) < ∞ and so (17)

H(x + h) − H(x) ≤ ⌈h⌉ C ≤ αh + β

for some positive α, β and any h > 0. In renewal theory it is usually easier ﬁrst to consider nonnegative Z, and then to extend some argument to arbitrary Z using the following approach. Let N = inf{n ∈ N : Sn > 0} be the ﬁrst ladder epoch of (Sn )n≥1 . We deﬁne a measure by ! N −1 X V (B) := E B ∈ B(R). 1Sn ∈B , n=0

V is a ﬁnite measure with support contained in (−∞, 0] and total mass equal EN . Since (Sn )n≥1 has d

a positive drift, EN is ﬁnite. Let Z1> = SN be the ﬁrst ladder height of (Sn )n≥1 and consider an i.i.d. sequence (Zn> )n≥1 . Then, it can be shown that H = V ∗ H >,

Pn where H > is the renewal measure of (Sn> )n≥1 and Sn> = k=1 Zk> ([Blackwell, 1953, Theorem 2], see also [Alsmeyer, 2015, Lemma 2.63] for more general formulation). For a part of our results we need a better control of H(x + h) − H(x) in terms of h then in (17). Something in the spirit of H(x + h) − H(x) ≤ chβ ,

x ≥ 0, h > 0

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

5

for some β > 0. Observe that with Cn = supx {H(x + 1/n) − H(x)} < ∞ we have ⌈nh⌉ n thus (19) holds for all x and h > 1/n with β = 1. Hence, we have to investigate the case of small h only. We have the following statement. H(x + h) − H(x) ≤ Cn

Lemma 2.1 Assume that P(Z > x) = o(e−rx ) as x → ∞ for some r > 0 and that the law of Z is strongly non-lattice. If there exists β > 0 such that lim sup sup h−β P(a < Z ≤ a + h) < ∞,

(18)

h→0+ a≥0

then there exists β˜ > 0 and c > 0 such that for x ≥ 0 and h ∈ R+ , ˜

H(x + h) − H(x) ≤ c max{hβ , h}.

(19)

Remark 2.2 Notice that (18) is satisfied when the law of Z has density in Lp for some 1 < p ≤ ∞. Proof. Assume ﬁrst that Z ≥ 0 with probability 1 and let F be the cumulative distribution function of Z. From condition (18) we infer that there exists β, c, ε > 0 such that for any a ≥ 0 and any h ∈ (0, ε] one has F (a + h) − F (a) = P(a < Z ≤ a + h) ≤ chβ . Since H(x) = 1x≥0 + H ∗ F (x) we have for any x ≥ 0 and h ∈ (0, ε], Z Z F (x + h − z)dH(z) (F (x − z + h) − F (x − z)) dH(z) + H(x + h) − H(x) = (x,x+h]

[0,x]

≤ chβ H(x) + F (h)(H(x + h) − H(x))

and thus H(x + h) − H(x) ≤ c˜hβ H(x) provided F (ε) < 1. Let now Z be arbitrary and let SN be the ﬁrst ladder height of (Sn )n≥1 . Since EN < ∞ and P(a < SN ≤ a + h) =

∞ X

P(a < Sn ≤ a + h, S1 ≤ 0, . . . , Sn−1 ≤ 0, Sn > 0)

n=1

=

∞ X

P(a − Sn−1 < Zn ≤ a − Sn−1 + h, N ≥ n) ≤ ch

n=1

β

∞ X

P(N ≥ n),

n=1

condition (18) implies that lim sup sup h−β P(a < SN ≤ a + h) < ∞. h→0+ a≥0 >

Thus, using factorization H = V ∗ H we obtain for x ≥ 0 and h ∈ (0, ε], Z Z > β H ((x − t, x − t + h])V (dt) ≤ ch H(x + h) − H(x) = H > (x − t)V (dt) = chβ H(x). (−∞,0]

For 0 ≤ x ≤ h

−δ

(−∞,0]

with δ < β this implies that ˜ β−δ . H(x + h) − H(x) ≤ Chβ (1 + x) ≤ Ch

On the other hand, for x > h−δ and r > 0 we have e−rx ≤ e−rh

−δ

≤ h.

and so the conclusion follows by (16), since then H(x + h) − H(x) =

h + o(e−rx ). EZ

6

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

 3. Renewal Theorems A function f : R → R+ is called directly Riemann integrable on R (dRi) if for any h > 0, X (20) sup f (y) < ∞ n∈Z (n−1)h≤y 0 and L(x) → ∞ as x → ∞, one has Z e x) L(e . L(ex−z )dH(z) ∼ EZ (0,x]

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

7

Proof. It is known that any slowly varying function is asymptotically equivalent to a smooth one, say L0 ([Bingham et al., 1989, Theorem 1.8.2]), such that xL′0 (x) = 0. x→∞ L0 (x)

(24)

lim

R e 0 (x) := x L0 (t)t−1 dt ∼ L(x), e Moreover, observe that L provided L0 (t)t−1 is integrable on a right neigh0 bourhood of 0. Thus, for x large enough, say x ≥ eN , one has

This implies that Z (1 − ε)

(0,x−N ]

L0 (ex−z )dH(z) ≤

1−ε≤

L(x) ≤ 1 + ε. L0 (x)

Z

L(ex−z )dH(z) ≤ (1 + ε)

Z

L0 (ex−z )dH(z).

(0,x−N ]

(0,x−N ] x

On the other hand, since the function Q(x) = L(e )1x 0 such that is decreasing. Indeed, by (24),   L0 (x) xL′0 (x) d L0 (x) = − α x) deﬁnes a probability distribution 

4. Tail asymptotics 4.1. Notation and assumptions. Throughout the paper, log stands for the natural logarithm. We are going to write a+ and a− for max{a, 0} and max{−a, 0} respectively, and we adopt the usual convention that 0α log 0 = 0. For any n ≥ 1 we write Πn = A1 · . . . · An and Π0 = 1. Our standing assumptions are: (A-1) P(A ≥ 0) = 1, E log A < 0, (A-2) There exists α > 0 such that EAα = 1, EAα log A < ∞, (A-3) the law of log A given A > 0 is non-arithmetic, (B-1) L(x) := xα P(B > x) ∈ R(0), α (B-2) EB+ = ∞, α−η (B-3) EB− < ∞ for any η ∈ (0, α). Note that under (A-2) ρ = EAα log A is strictly positive. Indeed, consider f (β) := EAβ . Since f (0) = 1 = f (α), f is convex, we have f ′ (α) = ρ > 0.

8

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

Deﬁne

As an easy consequence of (12) we obtain

e L(x) :=

Z

0

x

L(t) dt. t

Proposition 4.1 Suppose that (B-1) is satisﬁed. Then α e EB+ 1B≤x = αL(x)

and for r > 0,

α+r EB+ 1B≤x = (α + r)

Z

x

tα+r−1 P(B > t)dt ∼

0

α+r r x L(x). r

e Under (B-1), condition (B-2) implies that L(x) → ∞ as x → ∞. In this chapter the previous results in the renewal theory will be applied to the random variable Z with the law deﬁned by P(Z ∈ ·) = EAα 1log A∈· .

(25)

4.2. Perturbed random walk. In the following section we consider the supremum of the perturbed multiplicative random walk R = sup{Πn−1 Bn }, n≥1

where (An , Bn )n≥1 are independent copies of (A, B). It is clear that R satisﬁes the maximum equation d

R = max{AR, B},

R and (A, B) are independent.

β β β β + EAβ ER+ , under (A-2) and (B-1) with β < α, we have EAβ < 1 and EB+ < ∞. ≤ EB+ Since ER+ Thus R has ﬁnite moments up to α. The main theorem of this section is α−η Theorem 4.2 Assume (A-1)-(A-3) and (B-1)-(B-2). If EAη B+ < ∞ for some η ∈ (0, α), then

xα P(R > x) ∼

e L(x) . ρ

If additionally EAα+ε < ∞ for some ε > 0 and the distribution of Z deﬁned by (25) is strongly non-lattice, then xα P(R > x) =

(26)

e E min{AR, B}α L(x) + − + O(L(x)). ρ αρ

Remark 4.3 We say that the law µ is spread-out if there exists n ∈ N such that n-th convolution µ∗n has non-zero absolutely continuous part. Notice that if the law of log A is spread-out then the law of Z is spread-out and so it is strongly non-lattice. If the law of A has a nontrivial absolutely continuous component then the same holds for log A implying that the law of Z is strongly non-lattice and we have (26). Assumption EAα+ε < ∞ implies through H¨ older inequality the existence of η ∈ (0, α) such that α−η EAη B+ < ∞. There is also a weaker condition formulated in Lemma 6.1. By (26) we have for any λ ≥ 1, (λx)α P(R > λx) − xα P(R > x) = O(L(x)), α

as x → ∞,

which means that x 7→ x P(R > x) ∈ OΠL (see [Bingham et al., 1989, Chapter 3]).

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

9

Proof. Let f (x) = eαx P(R > ex ) and ψ(x) = eαx (P(R > ex ) − P(AR > ex )). Let g : Rn → R be a Borel function. If (Zk )k is an i.i.d. sequence with the law (25), then Eg(Z1 , . . . , Zn ) = EΠα n g(log A1 , . . . , log An ), where (Ak )k are i.i.d. In particular, EZ = EAα log A ∈ (0, ∞).

(27) Then,

f (x) = ψ(x) + EAα f (x − log A) = ψ(x) + Ef (x − Z).

(28) Iterating (28) we obtain

f (x) =

n−1 X

Eψ(x − Sk ) + Ef (x − Sn ),

k=0

where Sn = Z1 + . . . + Zn , S0 = 0. Clearly, if the law of log A given A > 0 is non-arithmetic under P, then the law of Z is non-arithmetic as well. By (27), the random walk (Sn )n≥1 has positive drift, thus Sn → ∞ with probability 1 as n → ∞k. Moreover, limx→−∞ f (x) = 0 and we conclude that Ef (x − Sn ) → 0 as n → ∞ and so Z ∞ X ψ(x − z)dH(z), f (x) = Eψ(x − Sk ) = R

k=1

where H is the renewal function of (Sn )n≥1 . In our case ψ is not dRi (it is not even in L1 ), so the Key Renewal Theorem is not applicable. Instead, we consider ψB (x) = eαx P(B > ex ) = L(ex ) and deﬁne ψ0 =Rψ − ψB . First we will show that R R ψ0 (x − z)dH(z) is convergent as x → ∞ to a ﬁnite limit. Therefore, R ψB (x − z)dH(z) will constitute the main part (see Theorem 3.1). Indeed, ψ0 (x) = −eαx P(min{AR, B} > ex ) and Z Z (29) eα(x−z) P(min{AR, B} > ex−z )dH(z) = E eα(x−z) dH(z)1min{AR,B}>0 , (x−D,∞)

R

where D = log min{AR, B}. Integrating by parts and changing the variable t = z − x + D, we obtain Z Z ∞ − ψ0 (x − z)dH(z) = αE min{AR, B}α e−αt (H(x − D + t) − H(x − D)) dt. + 0

R

By (17), we may take the limit as x → ∞ inside the integral. Thus, by the Blackwell Theorem we get Z Z ∞ E min{AR, B}α t + dt = . − ψ0 (x − z)dH(z) → E min{AR, B}α αe−αt + EZ αρ R 0 For the main part, we have Z Z L(ex−z )dH(z). ψB (x − z)dH(z) = R

R

Thus, we have to check that the assumptions of Theorem 3.1 are satisﬁed. We already know that the expectation of Z is strictly positive and ﬁnite. Moreover, the law of Z is non-arithmetic. Further, we have P(Z ≤ x) = EAα 1log A≤x ≤ eαx for any x ∈ R. Finally, observe that EeεZ = EAα+ε < ∞. In terms of second order asymptotics, so far we have shown that e x ) E min{AR, B}α L(e + eαx P(R > ex ) = (30) − + o(1) + O(L(ex )), ρ αρ where Z E min{AR, B}α + =: K(x) ψ0 (x − z)dH(z) + o(1) = αρ R

10

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

is the error term coming from the integral of ψ0 . However, L may be decreasing to 0 (f.e. L(t) = 1/ log(t)) and we want to be more precise here. We will show that for some δ > 0, K(x) = o(e−δx ). α+δ and in such case we may drop o(1) in (30). Let us ﬁrst note that if EAα+ε < ∞, then E min{AR, B}+ < αε ∞ for δ < α+ε . Indeed, we have 1/q  q(α+δ−η) α+δ−η η (EAηp )1/p , EB α+δ 10 0. The right hand side is ﬁnite for η ∈ (δ α+ε ε , α) with p = η . Analogously α+δ we show that E(AR)+ 1B>AR < ∞. We write (recall that D = log min{AR, B})   Z ∞ t α −αt dt1D≤x H(x − D + t) − H(x − D) − K(x) = −αE min{AR, B}+ e EZ Z ∞0 − αE min{AR, B}α e−αt (H(x − D + t) − H(x − D)) dt1D>x + 0

E min{AR, B}α + 1D>x + = K1 + K2 + K3 . αEZ

We have α+δ −δx |K2 + K3 | ≤ CE min{AR, B}α min{AR, B}+ . + 1min{AR,B}>ex ≤ ce

Moreover, under our setup we know that for R(x) = H(x) − 2

EZ −rx 2(EZ)2 | ≤ Ce Z ∞ αE min{AR, B}α e−αt (|R(x + 0

x → ∞ and thus |R(x) − |K1 | ≤

x EZ

one has R(x) −

EZ 2 2(EZ)2

= o(e−rx ) as

for some C > 0 and 0 < r < δ and all x ≥ 0. Then α+r ˜ −rx E min{AR, B}+ − D + t)| + |R(x − D)|) dt1D≤x ≤ Ce

and the conclusion follows.

 4.3. Perpetuity - first order asymptotics. In this section we consider the following random aﬃne equation (31)

d

R = AR + B,

where

(A, B) and R are independent.

Given (A, B) that satisﬁes (A-1) and (B-1), there is a unique solution R to (31). We are going to describe the ﬁrst order asymptotics of R under the same assumptions as in Theorem 4.2. The proof, however, is not that simple because in principle ψ0 may not be dRi. So one may proceed as in Goldie : ﬁrst show that ψ0 is in L1 , then apply a regularization procedure and, ﬁnally, deregularize solution using some Tauberian argument. But in this case even to prove that ψ0 ∈ L1 constitutes already a challenge and the rest is quite elaborated. So it seems that a diﬀerent approach, introduced in Buraczewski et al.  may be a way out. Instead of ﬁnding the asymptotics of P(R > x) we look for the asymptotics of Eg(R/x), where g is a H¨ older function and suppg ⊂ [1, ∞). The advantage of such approach is that the analog of function ψ0 is easily shown to be dRi (see Proposition 4.6). Moreover, the asymptotics of P(R > x) follows simply from the asymptotics of Eg(R/x). However, for the second order asymptotics of P(R > x) “H¨older function” approach doesn’t work. This problem will be treated in the next Section. Theorem 4.4 Assume (A-1)-(A-3) and (B-1)-(B-2). If E|B|α−ε Aε < ∞ for some 0 < ε ≤ 1/2 with ε < α/2, then e L(x) xα P(R > x) ∼ . ρ

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

11

For 0 < ε ≤ 1/2, we deﬁne H ε to be the set of bounded functions g satisfying |g(x) − g(y)| < ∞. |x − y|2ε x,y∈R

kgkε = sup

Theorem 4.4 is an immediate consequence of the following one Theorem 4.5 Suppose that the assumptions of Theorem 4.4 are satisfied. Suppose that g ∈ H ε , suppg ⊂ [1, ∞), g ′ exists and is bounded. Then Z α α −1 e g(r)r−α−1 dr L(x). (32) x Eg(x R) ∼ ρ R

To prove Theorem 4.4 we apply Theorem 4.5 to bounded functions g such that g ′ is compactly supported in [1, ∞). They are clearly in H ε because for |x − y| ≤ C we have |x − y| ≤ C 1−2ε |x − y|2ε . First we prove Theorem 4.4 and the rest of the section will be devoted to the proof of Theorem 4.5. Proof of Theorem 4.4. It is enough to prove that for a ξ > 1 e −1 P(R > xξ) = ξ −α . lim xα L(x)

(33)

x→∞

Let ξ > 1 and η > 0 be such that ξ − η > 1. Let g1 be a C 1 function such that 0 ≤ g1 ≤ 1 and ( 0 if x ≤ ξ − η (34) g1 (x) = , 1 if x ≥ ξ Let g2 (x) = g1 (x − η). Then g1 , g2 satisfy the assumptions of Theorem 4.5 because g1′ (x), g2′ (x) = 0 for x ≤ ξ −η and x ≥ ξ +η. We have e −1 Eg2 (x−1 R) I2 := lim xα L(x) x→∞

e −1 P(R > xξ) ≤ lim sup xα L(x) e −1 P(R > xξ) ≤ lim inf xα L(x) x→∞

x→∞

e −1 Eg1 (x−1 R) =: I1 . ≤ lim xα L(x) x→∞

Moreover, for every η < 1 − ε, |I1 − I2 | ≤ ≤ which proves that

α ρ

Z

|g1 (r) − g2 (r)|r−α−1 dr

0

Z

ξ+η

r−α−1 dr ≤ 2αη/ρ,

ξ−η

e −1 P(R > xξ) lim xα L(x)

x→∞

and for every η

α ρ

exists

e −1 P(R > xξ) − ξ −α ≤ 3αη/ρ. lim xα L(x) x→∞

Hence the conclusion follows.



Proof of Theorem 4.5. Now we are going to prove Theorem 4.5. We assume that suppg ⊂ [1, ∞) and we write f (x) = eαx Eg(e−x R). Let  ψ0 (x) = eαx E (g(e−x (AR + B)) − g(e−x AR) − g(e−x B) ,

12

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

and ψB (x) = eαx Eg(e−x B) ≤ eαx P(B > ex ) = L(ex ). Proceeding similarly as in the proof of Theorem 4.2, we obtain Z Z ψ0 (x − z)dH(z) + ψB (x − z)dH(z), f (x) = R

R

where H is the renewal function of (Sn )n≥1 and Sn = Z1 + . . . + Zn , where the distribution of Zi is deﬁned in (25). By Theorem 4.6, ψ0 is directly Riemann integrable and so Z Z lim ψ(x − z)dH(z) = (EZ)−1 ψ(x)dx < ∞. x→∞

R

R

Therefore, Theorem 4.5 follows from Theorem 3.1 similarly as in the proof of Theorem 4.2.



In the next proposition we do not need to assume that A ≥ 0 with probability 1 nor that R is the d solution of the equation R = AR + B. We require only that the moments of |R| of order strictly smaller then α are ﬁnite, which is satisﬁed in our framework. Proposition 4.6 Suppose that A, B, R are real valued random variables and (A, B) is independent of R. Assume further that 0 < ε < α2 , ε ≤ 12 and E|A|α < ∞, E|B|α−ε |A|ε < ∞, E|R|β < ∞ for every β < α. Then for every g ∈ H ε such that 0 ∈ / supp g the function  αx ψ0 (x) = e E g(e−x (AR + B)) − g(e−x AR) − g(e−x B) is directly Riemann integrable.

Proof. Since ψ is continuous it is enough to prove that X (35) supp{x:n≤x η}. Thus, |ψ(x)| ≤ Ceαx E|e−x B|ε |e−x AR|ε 1|AR|+|B|≥ex η . We have supp{x:n≤x x) ∈ R(0). If there exists β > 0 such that lim sup sup h−β P(a < log A ≤ a + h) < ∞, h→0+ a∈R

and EAγ < ∞ for some γ > max{α, α2 /β}, then both functions I1 (x) = eαx P(max{AR, B} ≤ ex < AR + B) and I2 (x) = eαx P(AR + B ≤ ex < max{AR, B}) are O(L(ex )) as x → ∞. Proof. Take γ ′ ∈ (max{α, α2 /β}, γ). Then, for any δ ∈ (0, 1), we have  ′ I1 (x) ≤ eαx P(B > ex /2) + P(eδx < B ≤ ex /2, AR + B > ex ) + P(A > eαx/γ )  ′ +P(B ≤ eδx , A ≤ eαx/γ , AR ≤ ex ≤ AR + B) = K1 + K2 + K3 + K4 .

It is clear that K1 = O(L(ex )). Furthermore, for any δ > 0 taking 0 < η < αδ/(1 + δ) we obtain K2 ≤ eαx P(ARB > e(1+δ)x /2) ≤ eαx 2α−η

E(ARB)α−η + = o(e−sx ). e(α−η)(1+δ)x

for some s > 0. Moreover, since 1 − γ/γ ′ < 0 we have K3 ≤ eαx

EAγ eαγx/γ ′

= o(e−sx )

for some s > 0 and so K2 and K3 are O(L(ex )) as well. For K4 deﬁne λ(x) = 1 − e−(1−δ)x → 1 and recall that α/γ ′ < 1. Then, by (36), K4 ≤ eαx P(λ(x)ex < AR ≤ ex , R > λ(x)e(1−α/γ =e

αx

≤ Ce

)x

)

P(x − log R + log λ(x) < log A ≤ x − log R, R > λ(x)e(1−α/γ

αx

β

(− log λ(x)) P(R > λ(x)e

(1−α/γ ′ )x

)

∼ Ceαx e−β(1−δ)x

(1−α/γ )x e L(λ(x)e ) ′ )x , α α(1−α/γ λ(x) e

which is O(e−sx ) for some s > 0 if there exists δ > 0 such that α2 < 1 − δ, γ ′β and this follows by the deﬁnition of γ ′ .

)x

)

14

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

We proceed similarly for I2 writing  ′ I2 (x) ≤ eαx P(B ≥ ex ) + P(AR > ex , −B > eδx ) + P(A > eαx/γ )  ′ +P(−B ≤ eδx , A ≤ eαx/γ , AR + B ≤ ex < AR) .

Then one can show that there exists δ > 0 small enough that I2 (x) = O(L(ex )).

 The following Theorem is the main result of this Section. Theorem 4.8 Assume (A-1)-(A-2) and (B-1)-(B-3). Assume further that there exists β > 0 such that lim sup sup h−β P(a < log A ≤ a + h) < ∞

(36)

h→0+ a∈R γ

and EA < ∞ for some γ > max{α, α2 /β}. If the distribution of Z deﬁned by (25) is strongly non-lattice, then as x → ∞,  α α e E (AR + B)α L(x) + − (AR)+ − B+ α + + O(L(x)) + o(1). x P(R > x) = ρ αρ

Proof. We begin the proof in the same way as in the proof of Theorem 4.2. In view of Theorem 3.1 it remains to show that as x → ∞ Z Z 1 ψ0 (t)dt + o(1), ψ0 (x − z)dH(z) = EZ R R where ψ0 (x) = eαx (P(AR + B > ex ) − P(AR > ex ) − P(B > ex )) = eαx P(max{AR, B} ≤ ex < AR + B) − eαx P(AR + B ≤ ex < max{AR, B}) − eαx P(min{AR, B} > ex ) = I1 (x) − I2 (x) − I3 (x). R E min{AR,B}α + In the proof of Theorem 4.2 we have already shown that R I3 (x − z)dH(z) converges to , αρ x x which is ﬁnite. By the preceding Lemma we know that Ii (e ) = O(L(e )), i = 1, 2 and this implies that as x → ∞, Z Ii (x − z)dH(z) = O(L(ex )),

i = 1, 2.

(−∞,0]

R x−z ) −δz for some Indeed, consider (−∞,0] L(e L(ex ) dH(z). For any δ > 0, the integrand is bounded by ce c > 1 by Potter bounds. Combining this with (15) and Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem we conclude that Z (37) L(ex−z )dH(z) ∼ L(ex )H(0). (−∞,0]

A better asymptotics of H(x) then (15) is available here: eαx H(−x) → (−αE log A)−1 as x → ∞, see Kolodziejek [2016a]. Observe that there exists β ∗ > 0 such that ∗

lim sup sup h−β P(a < Z ≤ a + h) < ∞.

(38)

h→0+ a≥0

Indeed, let p =

α+ε α ,

q=

α+ε ε .

Then

P(a < Z ≤ a + h) = EAα 1a u and d > u, Z eα(x−z) dH(z) ≤ eαd (H(x − u) − H((x − d)+ )) ((x−d)+ ,x−u]

(39)

˜

≤ ceαd max{(x − u − (x − d)+ )β , x − u − (x − d)+ } ˜

≤ ceαd max{(d − u)β , d − u} for some β˜ > 0, where, the ﬁrst inequality follows from monotonicity of the integrand and the second one by Lemma 2.1. Moreover, notice that for 0 < λ ≤ 1 and all x > 0 one has log(1 + x) ≤ λ−1 xλ . Let us denote U = log max{AR, B} and D = log(AR + B). Then, by (39) Z Z eα(x−z) 1max{AR,B}≤ex−z U =E (x−D,x−U]∩(0,∞)

˜

≤ cE(AR + B)α ((D − U )β + (D − U ))1D>U . For the ﬁrst term above we have ˜

cE(AR + B)α (D − U )β 1D>U   β˜ min{AR, B} α ≤ cE(AR + B) log 1 + 1AR+B>max{AR,B} max{AR, B} ≤

˜

c

min{AR, B}λβ

λβ

max{AR, B}λβ˜

E(AR + B)α ˜

≤ 2α ≤ 2α

c

˜

λβ˜ c

λβ˜

1AR+B>max{AR,B} ˜

E max{AR, B}α−λβ min{AR, B}λβ 1AR+B>max{AR,B}  ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ E(AR)α−λβ B λβ 1min{AR,B}=B>0 + EB α−λβ (AR)λβ 1min{AR,B}=AR>0 < ∞

˜ An analogous calculation shows that E(AR + B)α (D − U )1D>U < ∞ and so Rprovided βλ < α.α(x−z) e dH(z)1D>U is dominated independently of x by an integrable function. Thus, (x−D,x−U]∩(0,∞) by Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem we have Z Z eα(x−z) 1x−zU I1 (x − z)dH(z) = E lim lim x→∞

x→∞

(0,∞)

and for d > u as x → ∞, Z eαu

(0,x−U]

eα(x−u−z) 1x−u−z0 (x−D,x−U]∩(0,∞) Z eα(x−z) dH(z)1AR+B≤2−1 max{AR,B},max{AR,B}>0 . +E (x−D,∞)∩(0,∞)

and by (39) Z E

(x−D,x−U]∩(0,∞)

eα(x−z) dH(z)1max{AR,B}>AR+B≥2−1 max{AR,B}>0  β˜ ≤ E max{AR, B}α (log max{AR, B} − log(AR + B))  + (log max{AR, B} − log(AR + B)) 1max{AR,B}>AR+B≥2−1 max{AR,B}>0 .

˜ It is bounded by Again, as before we do calculations for the term with β.  β˜ − min{AR, B}  cE max{AR, B}α log 1 + 1max{AR,B}>AR+B≥2−1 max{AR,B}>0 AR + B  λβ˜ − min{AR, B} c ≤ ˜ E max{AR, B}α 1max{AR,B}>AR+B≥2−1 max{AR,B}>0 AR + B λβ λβ˜  | min{AR, B}| c 1max{AR,B}>AR+B≥2−1 max{AR,B}>0 ≤ 2λβ ˜ E max{AR, B}α max{AR, B} λβ c ˜ ˜ ≤ 2λβ ˜ E max{AR, B}α−λβ | min{AR, B}|λβ < ∞ β λ as before. Similarly as in (29), the second term equals Z ∞ αE max{AR, B}α e−αt (H(x − D + t) − H(x − D)) dt1AR+B≤2−1 max{AR,B},max{AR,B}>0 0

≤ cE max{AR, B}α + 1AR+B≤2−1 max{AR,B},max{AR,B}>0 .

Now, since min{AR, B} ≤ 0 and AR + B = max{AR, B} + min{AR, B} ≤ we have | min{AR, B}| ≥

1 max{AR, B} 2

1 max{AR, B} 2

and E max{AR, B}α 1| min{AR,B}|≥2−1 max{AR,B}>0 ≤ EB α 1B>0,AR0,B 0, possibly with P(A ≤ 0) = 1. Our aim is to reduce the general case to the one already solved: non-negative A. We propose a uniﬁed approach to perpetuities, which applies beyond our particular assumptions. d Assume that E log |A| < 0 and E log+ |B| < ∞. Then the stochastic equation R = AR + B with (A, B) and R independent has a unique solution, or equivalently, that Rn = An Rn−1 + Bn , n ≥ 1, converges in distribution to R for any R0 independent of (An , Bn )n≥1 , where (An , Bn )n≥1 is a sequence of independent copies of the pair (A, B). For the tail of R we have the following statement. Theorem 4.9 Suppose that (sA-1) P(A < 0) > 0, E log |A| < 0, (sA-2) there exists α > 0 such that E|A|α = 1, ρ = E|A|α log |A| < ∞, (sA-3) the distribution of log |A| given |A| > 0 is non-arithmetic, (sA-4) there exists ε > 0 such that E|A|α+ε < ∞, (sB-1) P(B > t) ∼ pt−α L(t), P(B < −t) ∼ qt−α L(t), (sB-2) E|B|α = ∞. Then e L(x) . (40) xα P(R > x) ∼ 2ρ

p + q = 1,

Take R0 = 0 and deﬁne the ﬁltration F = {Fn : n ≥ 1}, where Fn = σ((Ak , Bk )nk=1 ). Following [Vervaat, 1979, Lemma 1.2], for any stopping time N (with respect to F) which is ﬁnite with probability one, R satisﬁes d

∗ R = A1 . . . AN R + RN ,

∗ R and (A1 . . . AN , RN ) are independent,

where Rn∗ = B1 + A1 B2 + . . . + A1 . . . An−1 Bn for n ≥ 1. Let N := inf{n : Πn ≥ 0}. Then, N is a stopping time with respect to F and N is ﬁnite with probability 1. Indeed, if P(A ≤ 0) = 1 then N = 2. If P(A > 0) > 0 then N = ∞ if and only if A1 < 0 and for every n ≥ 2, An > 0 which means that for every n P(N = ∞) ≤ P(A < 0)P(A > 0)n−1 → 0,

(41)

as n → ∞.

∗ To conclude we need to prove that ΠN and RN satisfy assumptions of Theorem 4.4. We will now prove that ΠN inherits its properties from A. The following result is strongly inspired by [Goldie, 1991, (9.11)-(9.13)] (see also [Alsmeyer, 2015, Lemma 4.12]). For completeness, we give a proof below.

Theorem 4.10 (i) If the law of log |A| given A 6= 0 is non-arithmetic (spread-out), then the law of log ΠN given ΠN > 0 is non-arithmetic (spread-out), α+¯ ε (ii) If E|A|α = 1 and E|A|α+ε < ∞ for some ε > 0 then there exists ε¯ > 0 such that EΠN < ∞, α α α (iii) If E|A| = 1 then EΠN = 1 and EΠN log ΠN = 2E|A| log |A|. Proof. If P (A ≤ 0) = 1 then ΠN = A1 A2 and the law of log ΠN given log ΠN > 0 is P< ∗ P< , where P< is the law of P . P< ∗ P< is non-arithmetic or spread out respectively if so is P< . Also the rest log |A| A 0) > 0.

18

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

(i) Denote by P> and P< the laws of P

log A A>0

and P

q = P(A < 0). By [Goldie, 1991, (9.11)], we have Plog ΠN |ΠN >0 =

1

P(ΠN > 0)

log |A| A + q 2 P∗2
0) and

∞ X

pn P∗n >

n=0

!

.

∗l If pP> +qP< is spread out then there are k, l ≥ 0 such that P∗k > ∗P< < has a non zero absolutely continuous component. Hence P> ∗ P∗2 < is spread out and the mixture of measures, one of which is spread-out is spread-out as well. If pP> + qP< is non-arithmetic then the supports of P> and P∗2 < generate a dense subgroup of R (see the argument below [Goldie, 1991, (9.13)]) and so does the support of η. Thus, we conclude that Plog ΠN |ΠN >0 is non-arithmetic. (ε)

(ε)

(0)

(ii) Let µ+ := EAα+ε 1A≥0 . Since the function ε 7→ µ+ is continuous and µ+ < 1, then there exists (ε ) ε1 > 0 such that µ+ 1 < 1. Then, we have ∞ X α+ε1 1 1 EΠα+ε = EA 1A1 0,...,An−1 >0,An ≤0 1 + EΠα+ε A ≥0 1 n 1 N n=2

(ε )

= µ+ 1 + E|A|α+ε1 1A0 = µ+ and for any k > 1,

k−2 Q(N = k) = Q(A1 < 0, A2 > 0, . . . , Ak− > 0, Ak ≤ 0) = (1 − µ+ )2 µ+ .

Hence EQ N = 2, where EQ is the expectation with respect to Q. Since FN ⊂ F∞ , for any S ∈ FN we have ∞ ∞ X X Q(S) = Q(S ∩ {N = n}) = E|Πn |α 1S∩{N =n} =

n=1 ∞ X

n=1

α EΠα N 1S∩{N =n} = EΠN 1S .

n=1

Putting S = Ω we obtain that EΠα N = 1. Further, since ΠN is FN measurable, we have ! N X α EΠN log ΠN = EQ log ΠN = EQ log |An | = EQ N · EQ log |A1 | = 2E|A|α log |A|, n=1

where the Wald’s identity was used.

 ∗ We are going to prove that the tails of RN behave like P(|B| > x). Let now P(A > 0) > 0 and A+ = A1A≥0 , A− = −A1A t) ∼ pt−α L(t),

P(B < −t) ∼ qt−α L(t),

p + q = 1.

and E|A|α+ε < ∞ for some ε > 0. If µ+ = EAα 1A>0 < 1, then (43)

P(S > t) ∼

1 P(B > t), 1 − µ+

P(S < −t) ∼

1 P(B < −t), 1 − µ+

and ∗ ∗ P(RN > t) ∼ P(|B| > t) ∼ P(RN < −t).

(44) Proof.

(i) Since {N ≥ k} = {A1 < 0, A2 > 0, . . . , Ak−1 > 0} for k ≥ 2 we have ∗ RN

=

∞ X

1N ≥k Πk−1 Bk = B1 − (A1 )−

k=1

∞ X

(A2 )+ · · · (Ak−1 )+ Bk

k=2

!

.

Let us denote the expression in brackets by S. Then, S is independent of ((A1 )− , B1 ) and satisﬁes (42). (ii) Tail asymptotic of S follow from the application of [Grey, 1994, Theorem 3] to (M, Q, R) = (A+ , B, S). We have E|M |α = EAα 1A>0 < 1 and E|M |α+ε ≤ E|A|α+ε < ∞ by the assumption. d

∗ ∗ Tail asymptotics of RN then follow from [Grey, 1994, Lemma 4], since RN = B + A− S. Here α α α+ε (M, Q, Y ) = (A− , B, S) and E|M | = EA 1A t) ∼ P(|B| > t). To obtain P(RN < −t) ∼ P(|B| > t) we apply the above d

argument to −R = A(−R) − B.  5. Proof of Theorem 3.1 1. Proof of (22) First we prove that e x )−1 lim L(e

(45)

x→∞

Z

eα(x−z) Eg(ez−x B)dH(z) = 0

(−∞,0]

Since g is bounded as its support is contained in [1, ∞), there exists a constant c such that g(x) ≤ c1x>1−ε for any ε > 0. Thus, eα(x−z) Eg(ez−x B) ≤ ceα(x−z) P(B > (1 − ε)ex−z ) = cL((1 − ε)ex−z ) and therefore Z Z e x )). eα(x−z) Eg(ez−x B)dH(z) ≤ c L((1 − ε)ex−z )dH(z) ∼ cL(ex )H(0) = o(L(e (−∞,0]

by (37).

(−∞,0]

20

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

For the main part we have Z Z ψB (x − z)dH(z) = eα(x−z) Eg(e−(x−z) B)1{B>ex } dH(z) (0,∞) (0,∞) Z eα(x−z) Eg(e−(x−z) B)1{0 (1 − ε)ex−z , B > ex )dH(z) (0,∞) Z eα(x−z) Eg(e−(x−z) B)1{0

2α η

and

E|A|α W (|A|)D < ∞. Then E|B|α−η |A|η < ∞.

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

Proof. Since E|A|α < ∞ and E|B|α−η < ∞, it is enough to prove that for a ﬁxed C0 E|B|α−η |A|η 1|B|>|A| 1|A|≥C0 < ∞. We choose γ close to 1 −

η α

such that 1−

η 0 be such that 2 + ξ < D(1 − γ) and β > 0 such that −1 − ξ < β(α − η − γα) < −1. Notice that with our choice of γ, α − η − γα < 0 so the latter may be done. Finally, we choose δ > 0 so small that β(α − η − γα + γδ) < −1. Now we ﬁx k0 ≥ 1 such that (50) holds for W with δ and t ≥ ek0 . For m ≥ k consider the sets  Sk,m = ek W (ek )β < |A| ≤ ek+1 W (ek+1 )β , em W (em )β < |B| ≤ em+1 W (em+1 )β Let C0 = ek0 W (ek0 )β . Then , for suﬃciently large k0 , X X E|B|α−η |A|η 1|B|>|A|1|A|≥C0 ≤ C em(α−η)+kη W (em )β(α−η) W (ek )βη P(Sk,m ). k≥k0 m≥k

but P(Sk,m ) ≤ P |B| > em W (em )β and

P |A| > ek W (ek )β

1−γ

  P |B| > em W (em )β ≤ e−αm W (em )−αβ L1 em W (em )β ≤ Ce−αm W (em )−αβ+βδ L1 (em ) ≤ Ce−αm W (em )1−αβ+βδ . Further, −D  P |A| > ek W (ek )β ≤ E|A|α W (|A|)D e−αk W (ek )−αβ W ek W (ek )β ≤ Ce−αk W (ek )−D−αβ ,

because W is increasing and W (ek ) ≥ 1. Therefore, we have E|B|α−η |A|η 1|B|>|A|1|A|≥C0 X X ≤C e(m−k)(α−η−αγ) W (em )β(α−η)+γ(1−αβ+βδ) W (ek )βη−αβ(1−γ)−D(1−γ) . k≥k0 m≥k

Due to the choice of γ, β and δ β(α − η) + γ(1 − αβ + βδ) = β(α − η − γα + γδ) + γ < 0 and

X

m≥k

e(m−k)(α−η−αγ) =

X

m≥0

em(α−η−αγ) < ∞.

23

24

E. DAMEK AND B. KOLODZIEJEK

Hence E|B|α−η |A|η 1|B|>|A| 1|A|≥C0 X W (ek )β(η−α+αγ)−D(1−γ) ≤C k≥k0

≤C

X

W (ek )1+ξ−D(1−γ) < ∞,

k≥k0

because 1 + ξ − D(1 − γ) < −1 and W (ek ) ≥ k.  Acknowledgements. Ewa Damek was partially supported by the NCN Grant UMO-2014/15/B/ST1/00060. Bartosz Kolodziejek was partially supported by the NCN Grant UMO-2015/19/D/ST1/03107. References G. Alsmeyer. Random Recursive Equations and Their Distributional Fixed Points. 2015. available online at http://wwwmath.uni-muenster.de/statistik/lehre/SS15/StRek/StochRekgl.pdf. V. F. Araman and P. W. Glynn. Tail asymptotics for the maximum of perturbed random walk. Ann. Appl. Probab., 16(3):1411–1431, 2006. ISSN 1050-5164. N. H. Bingham, C. M. Goldie, and J. L. Teugels. Regular variation, volume 27 of Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989. D. Blackwell. Extension of a renewal theorem. Pacific J. Math., 3:315–320, 1953. D. Buraczewski, E. Damek, Y. Guivarch, A. Hulanicki, and R. Urban. Tail-homogeneity of stationary measures for some multidimensional stochastic recursions. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 145(3):385– 420, 2009. D. Buraczewski, E. Damek, and Mikosch T. Stochastic Models with Power-Law Tails. The Equation X = AX +B. Springer Series in Operations Research abd Financial Engineering. Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, 2016. N. Enriquez, C. Sabot, and O. Zindy. A probabilistic representation of constants in Kesten’s renewal theorem. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 144(3-4):581–613, 2009. C. M. Goldie. Implicit renewal theory and tails of solutions of random equations. Ann. Appl. Probab., 1 (1):126–166, 1991. C. M. Goldie and R. Gr¨ ubel. Perpetuities with thin tails. Adv. in Appl. Probab., 28(2):463–480, 1996. D. R. Grey. Regular variation in the tail behaviour of solutions of random diﬀerence equations. Ann. Appl. Probab., 4(1):169–183, 1994. P. Hitczenko and J. Wesolowski. Perpetuities with thin tails revisited. Ann. Appl. Probab., 19(6):2080– 2101, 2009. P. Hitczenko and J. Wesolowski. Renorming divergent perpetuities. Bernoulli, 17(3):880–894, 2011. A. Iksanov. Renewal theory for perturbed random walks and similar processes. Birkh¨auser, 2017. available online at http://do.unicyb.kiev.ua/iksan/publications/Iksanov2016e.pdf. A. Iksanov and A. Pilipenko. On the maximum of a perturbed random walk. Statist. Probab. Lett., 92: 168–172, 2014. P. Kevei. A note on the Kesten-Grinceviˇcius-Goldie theorem. Electron. Commun. Probab., 21:Paper No. 51, 12, 2016. B. Kolodziejek. The left tail of renewal measure. submitted., pages 1–4, 2016a. B. Kolodziejek. Logarithmic tails of sums of products of positive random variables baounded by one. Ann. Appl. Probab., pages 1–21, 2016b. to appear.

STOCHASTIC RECURSIONS: BETWEEN KESTEN’S AND GREY’S ASSUMPTIONS

25

Z. Palmowski and B. Zwart. Tail asymptotics of the supremum of a regenerative process. J. Appl. Probab., 44(2):349–365, 2007. C. Stone. On moment generating functions and renewal theory. Ann. Math. Statist., 36:1298–1301, 1965. W. Vervaat. On a stochastic diﬀerence equation and a representation of nonnegative inﬁnitely divisible random variables. Adv. in Appl. Probab., 11(4):750–783, 1979. Y. Wang. Convergence to the maximum process of a fractional Brownian motion with shot noise. Statist. Probab. Lett., 90:33–41, 2014. Institute of Mathematics, Wroclaw University, 50-384 Wroclaw, pl. Grunwaldzki 2/4, Poland E-mail address: [email protected] Faculty of Mathematics and Information Science, Warsaw University of Technology, Koszykowa 75, 00-662 Warsaw, Poland E-mail address: [email protected]