2007
DOI: 10.1007/s00440-007-0109-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Convolution equivalence and distributions of random sums

Abstract: A serious gap in the Proof of Pakes's paper on the convolution equivalence of infinitely divisible distributions on the line is completely closed. It completes the real analytic approach to Sgibnev's theorem. Then the convolution equivalence of random sums of IID random variables is discussed. Some of the results are applied to random walks and Lévy processes. In particular, results of Bertoin and Doney and of Korshunov on the distribution tail of the supremum of a random walk are improved. Finally, an extensi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
72
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(75 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
1
72
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Watanabe (2007) proves that Theorem 3.3(c) implies Theorem 3.3(b) (and hence (a)) by using a clever adaptation of the first part of the proof of Theorem 4.2 of Embrechts and Goldie (1982). Theorem 3.3 as stated (i.e.…”
Section: Convolution Equivalence and Infinite Divisibilitymentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Watanabe (2007) proves that Theorem 3.3(c) implies Theorem 3.3(b) (and hence (a)) by using a clever adaptation of the first part of the proof of Theorem 4.2 of Embrechts and Goldie (1982). Theorem 3.3 as stated (i.e.…”
Section: Convolution Equivalence and Infinite Divisibilitymentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Recent studies of this class can be found in Pakes (2004), Tang (2006), Foss and Korshunov (2007), and Watanabe (2008), among many others. This class is often used to model claim-size distributions; see, for example, Embrechts and Veraverbeke (1982), Klüppelberg (1989a), and Tang and Tsitsiashvili (2004).…”
Section: On the Claim-size Distributionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Then lim x→∞ G * n (x)/F * n X (x) = 0, for any n ∈ N, and hence, by (ii) lim x→∞ G * n (x)/F X (x) = 0. Further, by Watanabe (2008),…”
Section: Proofmentioning
confidence: 90%