Question
Let be i.i.d. integer-valued random variables. Define the Galton--Watson branching process satisfying:
If and , prove that as , in the convergence sense, and that .
(Hint: Consider the convergence theorem for ; one needs to show .)
Step-by-step solution
Step 1. Define the natural filtration Set Since , we obtain Therefore is a martingale.
Step 2. Compute the second moment recursion. Given , write with i.i.d. summands of mean and variance . Hence Divide by and take expectations: where we used .
Step 3. Sum the recursion from to : So , i.e. is bounded in .
Step 4. By the martingale convergence theorem in , there exists an random variable such that Equivalently,
Step 5. Since in as well (because -convergence implies -convergence), we may pass expectations to the limit: But is a martingale with , so for all . Hence
Therefore, for the supercritical Galton--Watson process with finite offspring variance, QED.
Final answer
QED.
Marking scheme
The following is the rubric for undergraduate mathematics graders.
1. Checkpoints (max 7 pts)
- Prove is a martingale (2 pts)
- Correctly derive or . [1 pt]
- State is a martingale and note . [1 pt]
- Prove boundedness (key difficulty) (3 pts)
- Establish the second moment/variance recurrence (e.g., ). [1 pt]
- Solve the recurrence to get an explicit expression for (involving a geometric series). [1 pt]
- Use to show the geometric series converges, hence . [1 pt]
- convergence conclusion (1 pt)
- Cite the martingale convergence theorem to conclude . [1 pt]
- Limit expectation (1 pt)
- State convergence implies convergence (or uniform integrability), hence . [1 pt]
Total (max 7)
2. Zero-credit items
- Merely copying definitions without derivation.
- Listing theorem names without verifying hypotheses.
- Directly asserting convergence without proving boundedness.
3. Deductions
- -1: Not mentioning when showing series convergence.
- -1: Not justifying .
- -1: Coefficient errors in the variance recurrence.
- -1: Confusing (population size) with (normalized variable).