Top Banner
Random evolution of population subject to competition Etienne Pardoux Projet ANR MANEGE collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013 collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, An / 29
64

Random evolution of population subject to competition

Nov 21, 2021

Download

Documents

dariahiddleston
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Random evolution of population subject to competition

Etienne Pardoux

Projet ANR MANEGE

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 1

/ 29

Page 2: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Contents

1 Finite population

2 Continuous population models

3 Effect of the competition on the height and length of the forest ofgenealogical trees

4 The path–valued Markov process

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 2

/ 29

Page 3: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Finite population

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 3

/ 29

Page 4: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Consider a continuous–time population model, where each individualgives birth at rate λ, and dies at an exponential time with parameterµ.

We superimpose a death rate due to interaction equal to f −(k) (resp.a birth rate due to interaction equal to f +(k)) while the totalpopulation size is k.

In fact since we want to couple the models for all possible initialpopulation sizes, we need to introduce a pecking order (e.g. from leftto right) on our ancestors at time 0, which is passed on to thedescendants, and so that any daughter is placed on the right of hermother.

In all what follows, we assume that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and forsome fixed a > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 4

/ 29

Page 5: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Consider a continuous–time population model, where each individualgives birth at rate λ, and dies at an exponential time with parameterµ.

We superimpose a death rate due to interaction equal to f −(k) (resp.a birth rate due to interaction equal to f +(k)) while the totalpopulation size is k.

In fact since we want to couple the models for all possible initialpopulation sizes, we need to introduce a pecking order (e.g. from leftto right) on our ancestors at time 0, which is passed on to thedescendants, and so that any daughter is placed on the right of hermother.

In all what follows, we assume that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and forsome fixed a > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 4

/ 29

Page 6: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Consider a continuous–time population model, where each individualgives birth at rate λ, and dies at an exponential time with parameterµ.

We superimpose a death rate due to interaction equal to f −(k) (resp.a birth rate due to interaction equal to f +(k)) while the totalpopulation size is k.

In fact since we want to couple the models for all possible initialpopulation sizes, we need to introduce a pecking order (e.g. from leftto right) on our ancestors at time 0, which is passed on to thedescendants, and so that any daughter is placed on the right of hermother.

In all what follows, we assume that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and forsome fixed a > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 4

/ 29

Page 7: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Consider a continuous–time population model, where each individualgives birth at rate λ, and dies at an exponential time with parameterµ.

We superimpose a death rate due to interaction equal to f −(k) (resp.a birth rate due to interaction equal to f +(k)) while the totalpopulation size is k.

In fact since we want to couple the models for all possible initialpopulation sizes, we need to introduce a pecking order (e.g. from leftto right) on our ancestors at time 0, which is passed on to thedescendants, and so that any daughter is placed on the right of hermother.

In all what follows, we assume that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and forsome fixed a > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 4

/ 29

Page 8: Random evolution of population subject to competition

2 3 4 5

t1

t 2

L3(t1)=4L3(t1)=4

L3(t 2)=9

1

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 5

/ 29

Page 9: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We want that the individual i interacts only with those individualswho sit on the left of her. Let Li (t) denote the number of individualalive at time t who sit on the left of i .

Then we decide that i gives birth at rateλ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]+, and dies at rateµ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]−.

Summing up, we conclude that the size of the population Xmt ,

starting from Xm0 = m, jumps

from k to

{k + 1, at rate λk +

∑k`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]+

k − 1, at rate µk +∑k

`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]−

Note that we have defined {Xmt , t ≥ 0} jointly for all m ≥ 1, i.e. we

have defined the two–parameter process {Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 6

/ 29

Page 10: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We want that the individual i interacts only with those individualswho sit on the left of her. Let Li (t) denote the number of individualalive at time t who sit on the left of i .

Then we decide that i gives birth at rateλ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]+, and dies at rateµ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]−.

Summing up, we conclude that the size of the population Xmt ,

starting from Xm0 = m, jumps

from k to

{k + 1, at rate λk +

∑k`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]+

k − 1, at rate µk +∑k

`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]−

Note that we have defined {Xmt , t ≥ 0} jointly for all m ≥ 1, i.e. we

have defined the two–parameter process {Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 6

/ 29

Page 11: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We want that the individual i interacts only with those individualswho sit on the left of her. Let Li (t) denote the number of individualalive at time t who sit on the left of i .

Then we decide that i gives birth at rateλ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]+, and dies at rateµ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]−.

Summing up, we conclude that the size of the population Xmt ,

starting from Xm0 = m, jumps

from k to

{k + 1, at rate λk +

∑k`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]+

k − 1, at rate µk +∑k

`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]−

Note that we have defined {Xmt , t ≥ 0} jointly for all m ≥ 1, i.e. we

have defined the two–parameter process {Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 6

/ 29

Page 12: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We want that the individual i interacts only with those individualswho sit on the left of her. Let Li (t) denote the number of individualalive at time t who sit on the left of i .

Then we decide that i gives birth at rateλ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]+, and dies at rateµ+ [f (Li (t))− f (Li (t)− 1)]−.

Summing up, we conclude that the size of the population Xmt ,

starting from Xm0 = m, jumps

from k to

{k + 1, at rate λk +

∑k`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]+

k − 1, at rate µk +∑k

`=1[f (`)− f (`− 1)]−

Note that we have defined {Xmt , t ≥ 0} jointly for all m ≥ 1, i.e. we

have defined the two–parameter process {Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 6

/ 29

Page 13: Random evolution of population subject to competition

In case f linear, we have a branching process, and for each t > 0,{Xm

t , m ≥ 1} has independent increments.In the general case, we don’t expect that for fixed t, {Xm

t , m ≥ 1} isa Markov chain.However, {Xm

t , t ≥ 0}m≥1 is a path–valued Markov chain. We canspecify the transitions as follows.For 1 ≤ m < n, the law of {X n

t − Xmt , t ≥ 0}, given

{X `t , t ≥ 0, 1 ≤ ` ≤ m} and given that Xm

t = x(t), t ≥ 0, is that ofthe time–inhomogeneous jump Markov process whose rate matrix{Qk,`(t), k , ` ∈ Z+} satisfies

Q0,` = 0, ∀` ≥ 1 and for any k ≥ 1,

Qk,k+1(t) = λk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]+

Qk,k−1(t) = µk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]−

Qk,` = 0, if ` 6∈ {k − 1, k , k + 1}.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 7/ 29

Page 14: Random evolution of population subject to competition

In case f linear, we have a branching process, and for each t > 0,{Xm

t , m ≥ 1} has independent increments.In the general case, we don’t expect that for fixed t, {Xm

t , m ≥ 1} isa Markov chain.However, {Xm

t , t ≥ 0}m≥1 is a path–valued Markov chain. We canspecify the transitions as follows.For 1 ≤ m < n, the law of {X n

t − Xmt , t ≥ 0}, given

{X `t , t ≥ 0, 1 ≤ ` ≤ m} and given that Xm

t = x(t), t ≥ 0, is that ofthe time–inhomogeneous jump Markov process whose rate matrix{Qk,`(t), k , ` ∈ Z+} satisfies

Q0,` = 0, ∀` ≥ 1 and for any k ≥ 1,

Qk,k+1(t) = λk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]+

Qk,k−1(t) = µk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]−

Qk,` = 0, if ` 6∈ {k − 1, k , k + 1}.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 7/ 29

Page 15: Random evolution of population subject to competition

In case f linear, we have a branching process, and for each t > 0,{Xm

t , m ≥ 1} has independent increments.In the general case, we don’t expect that for fixed t, {Xm

t , m ≥ 1} isa Markov chain.However, {Xm

t , t ≥ 0}m≥1 is a path–valued Markov chain. We canspecify the transitions as follows.For 1 ≤ m < n, the law of {X n

t − Xmt , t ≥ 0}, given

{X `t , t ≥ 0, 1 ≤ ` ≤ m} and given that Xm

t = x(t), t ≥ 0, is that ofthe time–inhomogeneous jump Markov process whose rate matrix{Qk,`(t), k , ` ∈ Z+} satisfies

Q0,` = 0, ∀` ≥ 1 and for any k ≥ 1,

Qk,k+1(t) = λk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]+

Qk,k−1(t) = µk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]−

Qk,` = 0, if ` 6∈ {k − 1, k , k + 1}.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 7/ 29

Page 16: Random evolution of population subject to competition

In case f linear, we have a branching process, and for each t > 0,{Xm

t , m ≥ 1} has independent increments.In the general case, we don’t expect that for fixed t, {Xm

t , m ≥ 1} isa Markov chain.However, {Xm

t , t ≥ 0}m≥1 is a path–valued Markov chain. We canspecify the transitions as follows.For 1 ≤ m < n, the law of {X n

t − Xmt , t ≥ 0}, given

{X `t , t ≥ 0, 1 ≤ ` ≤ m} and given that Xm

t = x(t), t ≥ 0, is that ofthe time–inhomogeneous jump Markov process whose rate matrix{Qk,`(t), k , ` ∈ Z+} satisfies

Q0,` = 0, ∀` ≥ 1 and for any k ≥ 1,

Qk,k+1(t) = λk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]+

Qk,k−1(t) = µk +k∑`=1

[f (x(t) + `)− f (x(t) + `− 1)]−

Qk,` = 0, if ` 6∈ {k − 1, k , k + 1}.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 7/ 29

Page 17: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Exploration process of the forest of genealogical trees

D

B

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 8

/ 29

Page 18: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Call {Hms , s ≥ 0} the zigzag curve in the above picture (with slope

±2), and define the local time accumulated by Hm at level t up totime s by

Lms (t) = lim

ε→0

1

ε

∫ s

01t≤Hm

r <t+εdr .

Hm is piecewise linear, with slopes ±1. While the slope is 2, the rateof appearance of a maximum is

µ+ [f (bLms (Hm

s )c+ 1)− f (bLms (Hm

s )c)]− ,

and the rate of appearance of a minimum while the slope is −2 is

λ+ [f (bLms (Hm

s )c+ 1)− f (bLms (Hm

s )c)]+ .

Let Sm = inf{s > 0, Lms (0) ≥ m} the time needed for Hm

s to explorethe genealogical trees of m ancestors. If we assume that thepopulation goes extinct in finite time, we have the Ray–Knight typeresult (see next figure)

{Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1} ≡ {Lm

Sm(t), t ≥ 0,m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 9

/ 29

Page 19: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Call {Hms , s ≥ 0} the zigzag curve in the above picture (with slope

±2), and define the local time accumulated by Hm at level t up totime s by

Lms (t) = lim

ε→0

1

ε

∫ s

01t≤Hm

r <t+εdr .

Hm is piecewise linear, with slopes ±1. While the slope is 2, the rateof appearance of a maximum is

µ+ [f (bLms (Hm

s )c+ 1)− f (bLms (Hm

s )c)]− ,

and the rate of appearance of a minimum while the slope is −2 is

λ+ [f (bLms (Hm

s )c+ 1)− f (bLms (Hm

s )c)]+ .

Let Sm = inf{s > 0, Lms (0) ≥ m} the time needed for Hm

s to explorethe genealogical trees of m ancestors. If we assume that thepopulation goes extinct in finite time, we have the Ray–Knight typeresult (see next figure)

{Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1} ≡ {Lm

Sm(t), t ≥ 0,m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 9

/ 29

Page 20: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Call {Hms , s ≥ 0} the zigzag curve in the above picture (with slope

±2), and define the local time accumulated by Hm at level t up totime s by

Lms (t) = lim

ε→0

1

ε

∫ s

01t≤Hm

r <t+εdr .

Hm is piecewise linear, with slopes ±1. While the slope is 2, the rateof appearance of a maximum is

µ+ [f (bLms (Hm

s )c+ 1)− f (bLms (Hm

s )c)]− ,

and the rate of appearance of a minimum while the slope is −2 is

λ+ [f (bLms (Hm

s )c+ 1)− f (bLms (Hm

s )c)]+ .

Let Sm = inf{s > 0, Lms (0) ≥ m} the time needed for Hm

s to explorethe genealogical trees of m ancestors. If we assume that thepopulation goes extinct in finite time, we have the Ray–Knight typeresult (see next figure)

{Xmt , t ≥ 0, m ≥ 1} ≡ {Lm

Sm(t), t ≥ 0,m ≥ 1}.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 9

/ 29

Page 21: Random evolution of population subject to competition

How to recover Xm from Hm ?

0 1 2 3

tlevel t

exploration time s S1

H1s

L1S1(t)

����������AAAAA����������AAAA������AAAAAAAAAAAAAA����AAAAAA

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 10

/ 29

Page 22: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Renormalization

Let N ≥ 1. Suppose that for some x > 0, m = bNxc, λ = 2N,

µ = 2N, replace f by fN = Nf (·/N). We define ZN,xt = N−1X

bNxct .

We have

Theorem

As N →∞,

{ZN,xt , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} ⇒ {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0}

in D([0,∞); D([0,∞);R+)) equipped with the Skorohod topology of thespace of calag functions of x, with values in the Polish spaceD([0,∞);R+), equipped with the adequate metric.

{Z xt , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} solves for each x > 0 the Dawson–Li type SDE

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du),

where W (ds, du) is a space–time white noise.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 11/ 29

Page 23: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Renormalization

Let N ≥ 1. Suppose that for some x > 0, m = bNxc, λ = 2N,

µ = 2N, replace f by fN = Nf (·/N). We define ZN,xt = N−1X

bNxct .

We have

Theorem

As N →∞,

{ZN,xt , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} ⇒ {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0}

in D([0,∞); D([0,∞);R+)) equipped with the Skorohod topology of thespace of calag functions of x, with values in the Polish spaceD([0,∞);R+), equipped with the adequate metric.

{Z xt , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} solves for each x > 0 the Dawson–Li type SDE

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du),

where W (ds, du) is a space–time white noise.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 11/ 29

Page 24: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Renormalization

Let N ≥ 1. Suppose that for some x > 0, m = bNxc, λ = 2N,

µ = 2N, replace f by fN = Nf (·/N). We define ZN,xt = N−1X

bNxct .

We have

Theorem

As N →∞,

{ZN,xt , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} ⇒ {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0}

in D([0,∞); D([0,∞);R+)) equipped with the Skorohod topology of thespace of calag functions of x, with values in the Polish spaceD([0,∞);R+), equipped with the adequate metric.

{Z xt , t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} solves for each x > 0 the Dawson–Li type SDE

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du),

where W (ds, du) is a space–time white noise.Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013

collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 11/ 29

Page 25: Random evolution of population subject to competition

How to check tightness ?

Our assumptions on f are pretty minimal. In order to check tightnessfor x fixed, we establish the two bounds

supN≥1

sup0≤t≤T

E(

ZN,xt

)2<∞, sup

N≥1sup

0≤t≤TE(−∫ t

0ZN,xs f (ZN,x

s )ds

)<∞,

and exploit Aldous’ criterion.

Concerning the tightness “in the x direction”, we establish thefollowing bound : for any 0 ≤ x < y < z with y − x ≤ 1, z − y ≤ 1,

E

[sup

0≤t≤T|ZN,y

t − ZN,xt |2 × sup

0≤t≤T|ZN,z

t − ZN,yt |2

]≤ C |z − x |2.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 12

/ 29

Page 26: Random evolution of population subject to competition

How to check tightness ?

Our assumptions on f are pretty minimal. In order to check tightnessfor x fixed, we establish the two bounds

supN≥1

sup0≤t≤T

E(

ZN,xt

)2<∞, sup

N≥1sup

0≤t≤TE(−∫ t

0ZN,xs f (ZN,x

s )ds

)<∞,

and exploit Aldous’ criterion.

Concerning the tightness “in the x direction”, we establish thefollowing bound : for any 0 ≤ x < y < z with y − x ≤ 1, z − y ≤ 1,

E

[sup

0≤t≤T|ZN,y

t − ZN,xt |2 × sup

0≤t≤T|ZN,z

t − ZN,yt |2

]≤ C |z − x |2.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 12

/ 29

Page 27: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Continuous population models

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 13

/ 29

Page 28: Random evolution of population subject to competition

For each fixed x > 0, there exists a standard BM Bt such that

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

√Z xs dBs .

However, B depends upon x in a non obvious way, and the good wayof coupling the evolution of Z x for various x ’s, which is compatiblewith the above coupling in the discrete case, is to use the Dawson–Liformulation

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du), ∀t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0.

It is easily seen that {Z xt , t ≥ 0}x≥0 is a path–valued Markov

process. More on this below.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 14

/ 29

Page 29: Random evolution of population subject to competition

For each fixed x > 0, there exists a standard BM Bt such that

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

√Z xs dBs .

However, B depends upon x in a non obvious way, and the good wayof coupling the evolution of Z x for various x ’s, which is compatiblewith the above coupling in the discrete case, is to use the Dawson–Liformulation

Z xt = x +

∫ t

0f (Z x

s )ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du), ∀t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0.

It is easily seen that {Z xt , t ≥ 0}x≥0 is a path–valued Markov

process. More on this below.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 14

/ 29

Page 30: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Subcriticality

We will say that Z x is subcritical if

T x0 = inf{t > 0; Z x

t = 0} <∞ a.s.

Let Λ(f ) =

∫ ∞1

exp

(−1

2

∫ u

1

f (r)

rdr

)du.

For any x ≥ 0, Z x is subcritical iff Λ(f ) =∞.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 15

/ 29

Page 31: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Subcriticality

We will say that Z x is subcritical if

T x0 = inf{t > 0; Z x

t = 0} <∞ a.s.

Let Λ(f ) =

∫ ∞1

exp

(−1

2

∫ u

1

f (r)

rdr

)du.

For any x ≥ 0, Z x is subcritical iff Λ(f ) =∞.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 15

/ 29

Page 32: Random evolution of population subject to competition

A generalized Ray–Knight theorem

We assume now that f ∈ C 1(R+;R), and there exists a > 0 such thatf ′(x) ≤ a, for all x ≥ 0. Suppose that we are in the subcritical case.We consider the SDE

Hs = Bs +1

2

∫ s

0f ′(Lz

r (Hr ))dr +1

2Ls(0),

where Ls(0) denotes the local time accumulated by the process H atlevel 0 up to time s. We define Sx = inf{s > 0, Ls(0) > x}.We have

Theorem

The laws of the two random fields {LSx (t); t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} and{Z x

t ; t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} coincide.

The proof exploits ideas from Norris, Rogers, Williams (1987) whoprove the other Ray–Knight theorem in a similar context.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 16

/ 29

Page 33: Random evolution of population subject to competition

A generalized Ray–Knight theorem

We assume now that f ∈ C 1(R+;R), and there exists a > 0 such thatf ′(x) ≤ a, for all x ≥ 0. Suppose that we are in the subcritical case.We consider the SDE

Hs = Bs +1

2

∫ s

0f ′(Lz

r (Hr ))dr +1

2Ls(0),

where Ls(0) denotes the local time accumulated by the process H atlevel 0 up to time s. We define Sx = inf{s > 0, Ls(0) > x}.We have

Theorem

The laws of the two random fields {LSx (t); t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} and{Z x

t ; t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} coincide.

The proof exploits ideas from Norris, Rogers, Williams (1987) whoprove the other Ray–Knight theorem in a similar context.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 16

/ 29

Page 34: Random evolution of population subject to competition

A generalized Ray–Knight theorem

We assume now that f ∈ C 1(R+;R), and there exists a > 0 such thatf ′(x) ≤ a, for all x ≥ 0. Suppose that we are in the subcritical case.We consider the SDE

Hs = Bs +1

2

∫ s

0f ′(Lz

r (Hr ))dr +1

2Ls(0),

where Ls(0) denotes the local time accumulated by the process H atlevel 0 up to time s. We define Sx = inf{s > 0, Ls(0) > x}.We have

Theorem

The laws of the two random fields {LSx (t); t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} and{Z x

t ; t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0} coincide.

The proof exploits ideas from Norris, Rogers, Williams (1987) whoprove the other Ray–Knight theorem in a similar context.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 16

/ 29

Page 35: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Effect of the competition on the height and length of theforest of genealogical trees

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 17

/ 29

Page 36: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The finite population case

We assume again that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and for some fixeda > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0. We assume in additionthat for some b > 0, f (x) < 0 for all x ≥ b. Define

Hm = inf{t > 0, Xmt = 0}, Lm =

∫ Hm

0 Xmt dt.

We have

Theorem

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx =∞, then supm Hm =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx <∞, then supm E(ecHm

) <∞ for some c > 0.

We have

Theorem

Assume in addition that g(x) = f (x)/x satisfies g(x + y)− g(x) ≤ ay.

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx =∞, then supm Lm =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx <∞, then supm E(ecLm

) <∞ for some c > 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 18

/ 29

Page 37: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The finite population case

We assume again that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and for some fixeda > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0. We assume in additionthat for some b > 0, f (x) < 0 for all x ≥ b. Define

Hm = inf{t > 0, Xmt = 0}, Lm =

∫ Hm

0 Xmt dt.

We have

Theorem

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx =∞, then supm Hm =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx <∞, then supm E(ecHm

) <∞ for some c > 0.

We have

Theorem

Assume in addition that g(x) = f (x)/x satisfies g(x + y)− g(x) ≤ ay.

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx =∞, then supm Lm =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx <∞, then supm E(ecLm

) <∞ for some c > 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 18

/ 29

Page 38: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The finite population case

We assume again that f ∈ C (R+;R), f (0) = 0 and for some fixeda > 0, f (x + y)− f (x) ≤ ay , for all x , y ≥ 0. We assume in additionthat for some b > 0, f (x) < 0 for all x ≥ b. Define

Hm = inf{t > 0, Xmt = 0}, Lm =

∫ Hm

0 Xmt dt.

We have

Theorem

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx =∞, then supm Hm =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx <∞, then supm E(ecHm

) <∞ for some c > 0.

We have

Theorem

Assume in addition that g(x) = f (x)/x satisfies g(x + y)− g(x) ≤ ay.

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx =∞, then supm Lm =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx <∞, then supm E(ecLm

) <∞ for some c > 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 18

/ 29

Page 39: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The case of continuous state space

Same assumptions as in the discrete case. We defineT x = inf{t > 0, Z x

t = 0}, Sx =∫ T x

0 Z xs ds.

We have

Theorem

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx =∞, then supx>0 T x =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx <∞, then supx>0 E(ecT x

) <∞ for some c > 0.

We have

Theorem

Assume in addition that g(x) = f (x)/x satisfies g(x + y)− g(x) ≤ ay.

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx =∞, then supx Sx =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx <∞, then supx E(ecSx

) <∞ for some c > 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 19

/ 29

Page 40: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The case of continuous state space

Same assumptions as in the discrete case. We defineT x = inf{t > 0, Z x

t = 0}, Sx =∫ T x

0 Z xs ds.

We have

Theorem

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx =∞, then supx>0 T x =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx <∞, then supx>0 E(ecT x

) <∞ for some c > 0.

We have

Theorem

Assume in addition that g(x) = f (x)/x satisfies g(x + y)− g(x) ≤ ay.

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx =∞, then supx Sx =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx <∞, then supx E(ecSx

) <∞ for some c > 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 19

/ 29

Page 41: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The case of continuous state space

Same assumptions as in the discrete case. We defineT x = inf{t > 0, Z x

t = 0}, Sx =∫ T x

0 Z xs ds.

We have

Theorem

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx =∞, then supx>0 T x =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1dx <∞, then supx>0 E(ecT x

) <∞ for some c > 0.

We have

Theorem

Assume in addition that g(x) = f (x)/x satisfies g(x + y)− g(x) ≤ ay.

1 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx =∞, then supx Sx =∞ a.s.

2 If∫∞b|f (x)|−1xdx <∞, then supx E(ecSx

) <∞ for some c > 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 19

/ 29

Page 42: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Intuitive idea

The reason why the above works is essentially because, ifg : R+ → R+ satifies ∫ ∞

0

1

g(x)dx <∞

then the solution of the ODE

x(t) = g(x), x(0) = x > 0

explodes in finite time.

Similarly the ODE

x(t) = −g(x), x(0) = +∞

has a solution which lives in C (R+;R+).

And the same is true for certain SDEs.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 20

/ 29

Page 43: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Intuitive idea

The reason why the above works is essentially because, ifg : R+ → R+ satifies ∫ ∞

0

1

g(x)dx <∞

then the solution of the ODE

x(t) = g(x), x(0) = x > 0

explodes in finite time.

Similarly the ODE

x(t) = −g(x), x(0) = +∞

has a solution which lives in C (R+;R+).

And the same is true for certain SDEs.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 20

/ 29

Page 44: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Intuitive idea

The reason why the above works is essentially because, ifg : R+ → R+ satifies ∫ ∞

0

1

g(x)dx <∞

then the solution of the ODE

x(t) = g(x), x(0) = x > 0

explodes in finite time.

Similarly the ODE

x(t) = −g(x), x(0) = +∞

has a solution which lives in C (R+;R+).

And the same is true for certain SDEs.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 20

/ 29

Page 45: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The path–valued Markov process

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 21

/ 29

Page 46: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Restriction of our general model

For the rest of this talk, we restrict ourselves to the casef (x) = −γx2, with γ > 0. We will only consider the continuousstate–space case.

This means that we consider the solution Z xt of the SDE

Z xt = x − γ

∫ t

0(Z x

s )2ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du).

Let us associate to this the solution of the same SDE with γ = 0,that is the critical Feller branching diffusion

Y xt = x + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Y xs

0W (ds, du).

If we consider those two SDEs with the same W , we obtain acoupling of Y and Z which satisfies Z x

t ≤ Y xt a.s. for all t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 22

/ 29

Page 47: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Restriction of our general model

For the rest of this talk, we restrict ourselves to the casef (x) = −γx2, with γ > 0. We will only consider the continuousstate–space case.

This means that we consider the solution Z xt of the SDE

Z xt = x − γ

∫ t

0(Z x

s )2ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du).

Let us associate to this the solution of the same SDE with γ = 0,that is the critical Feller branching diffusion

Y xt = x + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Y xs

0W (ds, du).

If we consider those two SDEs with the same W , we obtain acoupling of Y and Z which satisfies Z x

t ≤ Y xt a.s. for all t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 22

/ 29

Page 48: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Restriction of our general model

For the rest of this talk, we restrict ourselves to the casef (x) = −γx2, with γ > 0. We will only consider the continuousstate–space case.

This means that we consider the solution Z xt of the SDE

Z xt = x − γ

∫ t

0(Z x

s )2ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Z xs

0W (ds, du).

Let us associate to this the solution of the same SDE with γ = 0,that is the critical Feller branching diffusion

Y xt = x + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Y xs

0W (ds, du).

If we consider those two SDEs with the same W , we obtain acoupling of Y and Z which satisfies Z x

t ≤ Y xt a.s. for all t ≥ 0, x ≥ 0.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 22

/ 29

Page 49: Random evolution of population subject to competition

A better coupling

For each k, n ≥ 1, let xkn = k2−n, and Y n,k

t = Yxknt . For each n ≥ 1,

we now define recursively {Zn,kt , t ≥ 0} for k = 1, 2, . . ..

We set Zn,0t ≡ 0 and define Zn,1

t to be the solution of the SDE

Zn,1t = 2−n + θ

∫ t

0Zn,1s ds − γ

∫ t

0(Zn,1

s )2ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Zn,1s

0W (ds, du).

And for k ≥ 2, we let Zn,kt = Zn,1

t + V n,2t + · · ·+ V n,k

t , where

V n,kt = 2−n + θ

∫ t

0V n,ks ds − γ

∫ t

0

[2Zn,k−1

s V n,ks + (V n,k

s )2]

ds

+ 2

∫ t

0

∫ Y n,k−1s +V n,k

s

Y n,k−1s

W (ds, du).

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 23

/ 29

Page 50: Random evolution of population subject to competition

A better coupling

For each k, n ≥ 1, let xkn = k2−n, and Y n,k

t = Yxknt . For each n ≥ 1,

we now define recursively {Zn,kt , t ≥ 0} for k = 1, 2, . . ..

We set Zn,0t ≡ 0 and define Zn,1

t to be the solution of the SDE

Zn,1t = 2−n + θ

∫ t

0Zn,1s ds − γ

∫ t

0(Zn,1

s )2ds + 2

∫ t

0

∫ Zn,1s

0W (ds, du).

And for k ≥ 2, we let Zn,kt = Zn,1

t + V n,2t + · · ·+ V n,k

t , where

V n,kt = 2−n + θ

∫ t

0V n,ks ds − γ

∫ t

0

[2Zn,k−1

s V n,ks + (V n,k

s )2]

ds

+ 2

∫ t

0

∫ Y n,k−1s +V n,k

s

Y n,k−1s

W (ds, du).

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 23

/ 29

Page 51: Random evolution of population subject to competition

It is plain that for all k ≥ 1,

Zn,kt − Zn,k−1

t = V n,kt ≤ Y n,k

t − Y n,k−1t a.s. for all t ≥ 0,

and that the law of {Zn,kt , k ≥ 1, t ≥ 0} is the right one.

Recall that for each t > 0, x → Y xt has finitely many jumps on any

compact interval, and is constant between its jumps, and if 0 < s < t,

{x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xs 6= Y x−

s }.

The above construction allows to show that the same is true for aproperly defined {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x > 0}, and moreover for all t > 0,

{x , Z xt 6= Z x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t }.

Consequently, as Y x , Z x is a sum of jumps.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 24

/ 29

Page 52: Random evolution of population subject to competition

It is plain that for all k ≥ 1,

Zn,kt − Zn,k−1

t = V n,kt ≤ Y n,k

t − Y n,k−1t a.s. for all t ≥ 0,

and that the law of {Zn,kt , k ≥ 1, t ≥ 0} is the right one.

Recall that for each t > 0, x → Y xt has finitely many jumps on any

compact interval, and is constant between its jumps, and if 0 < s < t,

{x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xs 6= Y x−

s }.

The above construction allows to show that the same is true for aproperly defined {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x > 0}, and moreover for all t > 0,

{x , Z xt 6= Z x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t }.

Consequently, as Y x , Z x is a sum of jumps.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 24

/ 29

Page 53: Random evolution of population subject to competition

It is plain that for all k ≥ 1,

Zn,kt − Zn,k−1

t = V n,kt ≤ Y n,k

t − Y n,k−1t a.s. for all t ≥ 0,

and that the law of {Zn,kt , k ≥ 1, t ≥ 0} is the right one.

Recall that for each t > 0, x → Y xt has finitely many jumps on any

compact interval, and is constant between its jumps, and if 0 < s < t,

{x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xs 6= Y x−

s }.

The above construction allows to show that the same is true for aproperly defined {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x > 0}, and moreover for all t > 0,

{x , Z xt 6= Z x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t }.

Consequently, as Y x , Z x is a sum of jumps.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 24

/ 29

Page 54: Random evolution of population subject to competition

It is plain that for all k ≥ 1,

Zn,kt − Zn,k−1

t = V n,kt ≤ Y n,k

t − Y n,k−1t a.s. for all t ≥ 0,

and that the law of {Zn,kt , k ≥ 1, t ≥ 0} is the right one.

Recall that for each t > 0, x → Y xt has finitely many jumps on any

compact interval, and is constant between its jumps, and if 0 < s < t,

{x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xs 6= Y x−

s }.

The above construction allows to show that the same is true for aproperly defined {Z x

t , t ≥ 0, x > 0}, and moreover for all t > 0,

{x , Z xt 6= Z x−

t } ⊂ {x , Y xt 6= Y x−

t }.

Consequently, as Y x , Z x is a sum of jumps.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 24

/ 29

Page 55: Random evolution of population subject to competition

More precisely, we can write Y x as the solution of the SDE (E stands forthe space of excursions away from 0)

Y x· =

∫[0,x]×E

uN(dy , du),

where N is a Poisson random measure on R+ × E with mean measuredy ×Q(du), where Q is the excursion measure of the Feller diffusion.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 25

/ 29

Page 56: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We have similarly that x → Z x is a sum of excursions. Call N(dy , du)the corresponding point process, which is such that for all x > 0,

Z x =

∫[0,x]×E

uN(dy , du).

The predictable intensity of N is

L(Z y , u)Q(du)dy ,

where (with ζ = inf{t, Ut = 0} the lifetime of U)

L(Z ,U) = exp

(−γ

4

∫ ζ

0(2Zt + Ut)dUt −

γ2

8

∫ ζ

0(2Zt + Ut)

2Utdt

).

This follows readily from the statement

Z x =

∫[0,x]×E

L(Z y , u)uQ(du)dy + Mx ,

where Mx is an E –valued Fx–martingale.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 26

/ 29

Page 57: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We have similarly that x → Z x is a sum of excursions. Call N(dy , du)the corresponding point process, which is such that for all x > 0,

Z x =

∫[0,x]×E

uN(dy , du).

The predictable intensity of N is

L(Z y , u)Q(du)dy ,

where (with ζ = inf{t, Ut = 0} the lifetime of U)

L(Z ,U) = exp

(−γ

4

∫ ζ

0(2Zt + Ut)dUt −

γ2

8

∫ ζ

0(2Zt + Ut)

2Utdt

).

This follows readily from the statement

Z x =

∫[0,x]×E

L(Z y , u)uQ(du)dy + Mx ,

where Mx is an E –valued Fx–martingale.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 26

/ 29

Page 58: Random evolution of population subject to competition

We have similarly that x → Z x is a sum of excursions. Call N(dy , du)the corresponding point process, which is such that for all x > 0,

Z x =

∫[0,x]×E

uN(dy , du).

The predictable intensity of N is

L(Z y , u)Q(du)dy ,

where (with ζ = inf{t, Ut = 0} the lifetime of U)

L(Z ,U) = exp

(−γ

4

∫ ζ

0(2Zt + Ut)dUt −

γ2

8

∫ ζ

0(2Zt + Ut)

2Utdt

).

This follows readily from the statement

Z x =

∫[0,x]×E

L(Z y , u)uQ(du)dy + Mx ,

where Mx is an E –valued Fx–martingale.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 26

/ 29

Page 59: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The last identity is proved as follows. We want to establish that forany t > 0,

Z x(t) =

∫[0,x]×E

Lγ(Z y , u)u(t)Q(du)dy + Mx(t).

Clearly if x is a dyadic number, then for n large enough

Z x(t) =x2n∑k=1

2−nE(

Z xk+1 − Z xk∣∣∣Z xk

)+ Mx

n (t),

where {Mxn (t), x > 0} is a martingale.

Now

E(

Z x+y (t)− Z x(t)∣∣∣Z x)

= E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x),

where

Uyt = y + 2

∫ t

0

√UsdBs .

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 27

/ 29

Page 60: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The last identity is proved as follows. We want to establish that forany t > 0,

Z x(t) =

∫[0,x]×E

Lγ(Z y , u)u(t)Q(du)dy + Mx(t).

Clearly if x is a dyadic number, then for n large enough

Z x(t) =x2n∑k=1

2−nE(

Z xk+1 − Z xk∣∣∣Z xk

)+ Mx

n (t),

where {Mxn (t), x > 0} is a martingale.

Now

E(

Z x+y (t)− Z x(t)∣∣∣Z x)

= E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x),

where

Uyt = y + 2

∫ t

0

√UsdBs .

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 27

/ 29

Page 61: Random evolution of population subject to competition

The last identity is proved as follows. We want to establish that forany t > 0,

Z x(t) =

∫[0,x]×E

Lγ(Z y , u)u(t)Q(du)dy + Mx(t).

Clearly if x is a dyadic number, then for n large enough

Z x(t) =x2n∑k=1

2−nE(

Z xk+1 − Z xk∣∣∣Z xk

)+ Mx

n (t),

where {Mxn (t), x > 0} is a martingale.

Now

E(

Z x+y (t)− Z x(t)∣∣∣Z x)

= E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x),

where

Uyt = y + 2

∫ t

0

√UsdBs .

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 27

/ 29

Page 62: Random evolution of population subject to competition

But

y−1E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x)

= EQy,t

(Lγ(Z x ,Uy )

∣∣∣Z x),

where under Qy ,t

Ur = y + 4t ∧ r + 2

∫ t

0

√UsdBs .

Finally we can take the limit as y → 0 in the last identity, yielding

y−1E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x)→ EQ0,t

(Lγ(Z x ,U)

∣∣∣Z x).

It just remain to verify that

EQ0,t

(Lγ(Z x ,U)

∣∣∣Z x)

=

∫E

Lγ(Z x , u)u(t)Q(du),

where Q is the above excursion measure.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 28

/ 29

Page 63: Random evolution of population subject to competition

But

y−1E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x)

= EQy,t

(Lγ(Z x ,Uy )

∣∣∣Z x),

where under Qy ,t

Ur = y + 4t ∧ r + 2

∫ t

0

√UsdBs .

Finally we can take the limit as y → 0 in the last identity, yielding

y−1E(

Lγ(Z x ,Uy )Uyt

∣∣∣Z x)→ EQ0,t

(Lγ(Z x ,U)

∣∣∣Z x).

It just remain to verify that

EQ0,t

(Lγ(Z x ,U)

∣∣∣Z x)

=

∫E

Lγ(Z x , u)u(t)Q(du),

where Q is the above excursion measure.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 28

/ 29

Page 64: Random evolution of population subject to competition

Bibliography

E. Pardoux, A. Wakolbinger, From Brownian motion with a local timedrift to Feller’s branching diffusion with logistic growth, Elec. Comm.in Probab. 16, 720–731, 2011.

V. Le, E. Pardoux, A. Wakolbinger, Trees under attack : aRay–Knight representation of Feller’s branching diffusion with logisticgrowth, Probab. Theory & Rel. Fields 155 583–619, 2013.

M. Ba, E. Pardoux, Branching processes with competition andgenralized Ray–Knight theorem, submitted, 2013.

V. Le, E. Pardoux, Height and the total mass of the forest ofgenealogical trees of a large population with general competition,ESAIM P & S, 2013, to appear.

J.R. Norris, L.C.G. Rogers, D. Williams, Self–avoiding random walks:a Brownian motion model with local time drift, Probab. Theory &Rel. Fields 74, 271–287, 1987.

J. Pitman, M. Yor, A decomposition of Bessel bridges, Z. furWahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Gebiete 59, 425–457, 1982.

Etienne Pardoux (Aix-Marseille) MANEGE, 26 Nov 2013collaborations avec Mamadou Ba, Vi Le, Anton Wakolbinger 29

/ 29