Long-term behaviour of refracted Lévy processes in a half-line

To begin with, we see from [Kyprianou2014, equation (8.11)] that, for a,v\ge 0 and for q\in\mathbb{R} such that q+q_X\ge 0,

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

and so, using [Kyprianou2014, equation (3.15)],

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

We will show that, for all y\le 0,

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

and from these two statements, the claim about resolvents follows by a simple calculation.

Starting with the left-hand side of (Proof),

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

By (Proof), the integrand is a decreasing function of a, and thus by dominated convergence, the limit as a\to\infty is given by D^{(q)}(y)<\infty. Moreover, W_Y^{(q+q_Y)}(-y)-W_Y^{(q+q_Y)}(u-y) > 0 for u \in (-y,0), so D^{(q)}(y)>0. This establishes (Proof).

Now, considering the resolvent density r^{(q)}_{(b,a)} when y>0, we have

The considerations above show that, for fixed y, the first and second ratio are both increasing in a and converge to our putative expression for r^{(q)}_b(x,y). Applying monotone convergence to the integral (2.2) restricted to (0,\infty) completes the proof for y>0.

Take now y\le 0. In this case we have

Now, we see that for fixed y, the first ratio is decreasing in a to D^{(q)}(y), and the second is increasing to 1/D^{(q)}(b). Take any a_0>0. This function of y is dominated (for any x and uniformly in a\ge a_0) by g(y) \coloneqq \frac{W_V^{(q)}(a_0,y)}{W_X^{(q+q_X)}(a_0)} \frac{1}{D^{(q)}(b)} W_V^{(q)}(x,b) - W_V^{(q)}(x,y). Since W_V^{(q)} is bounded on compacts, \int_b^0 g(y)\, dy < \infty, and therefore we can apply dominated convergence in the integral (2.2) over the domain [b,0]. This completes the proof for y\le 0.

We know, since it appears in the expression for D^{(q)}(x), (Proof) implies that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Define

Fix M>0 and split the integral into the regions \{v\le M\} and \{v>M\}. For 0\le v\le M, we have e^{-\Phi_X(q)v}\ge e^{-\Phi_X(q)M}>0. Therefore,

which is finite by (Proof). Next, take v>M. Since W_Y^{(q)}(u-x)\ge 0 for u<0, we have

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

where we performed the change of variables w = u - v and used Tonelli’s theorem. This completes the proof of finiteness.

Next, we focus on integrability. Indeed, the second term is integrable over the compact interval [b,0] because the scale function is continuous. We now deal with the first term. Note that

pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline*

pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline*

which appears in the expression of D^{(q)} in Lemma 2.3, and is thereby integrable since q-resolvent is finite.

Write D^{(q)}(x)=D^{(q)}_1(x)+D^{(q)}_2(x) where

and

The function \Phi is the Laplace exponent of a subordinator, which is analytic where finite; and q \in \mathcal{D} is equivalent to \Phi_X(q+q_X) being finite and positive. Moreover, q\mapsto W_Y^{(q+q_X)}(z) has an analytic extension for each z by Lemma 4-(ii) in [Bertoin1997]. This shows that q \mapsto D^{(q)}_1(x) has an analytic extension on \mathcal{D}.

We turn our attention to D^{(\cdot)}_2(x). Let \gamma be a closed piecewise smooth curve contained in \mathcal{D}. We will show that \int_\gamma D^{(q)}_2(x)\, dq =0. Consider

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

We first control the integrand uniformly in q. Using the analytic extension of scale functions (see Lemma 8.3 in [Kyprianou2014]), for y, a \in \mathbb{R},

Let int(\gamma) denote the interior of the bounded connected component formed by the closed curve \gamma and define

Then (using the fact that the convolution of non-negative increasing functions remains increasing),

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

By Lemma 2.4,

Thus, recalling that \gamma is contained in \mathcal{D}, the integrand in (?) is bounded in absolute value by an integrable function uniformly in q \in \mathrm{int}(\gamma). It also follows from dominated convergence that q\mapsto D_2^{(q)}(x) is continuous on \mathcal D. Fubini’s theorem implies that

For each fixed (u,v), the function

is analytic on \mathcal{D}; hence its integral around \gamma is zero. Therefore, \int_\gamma D^{(q)}_2(x)\, dq=0, and by Morera’s theorem, D^{(\cdot)}_2(x) has analytic extension in \mathcal{D}. Hence, proved.

We use the same decomposition in Lemma 2.5, namely D^{(q)}(x)=D^{(q)}_1(x)+D^{(q)}_2(x), and begin with D_1^{(q)}(x).

[Bertoin1997, Lemma 4(iii)] gives the bound |W_Y^{(q+q_Y)}(-x)|\leq W^{(Q+q_Y)}_Y(-x). By Assumption ?, \Phi_X is positive and continuous on [-Q,\infty), so g(Q) \coloneqq \sup\bigl\{ \frac{q+q_X}{\Phi_X(q+q_X)} : -Q \le q < 0 \bigr\} is finite. This completes the bound on D_1^{(q)}(x).

We turn to D_2^{(q)}(x). Again using the comparison in (?) and monotonicity of \Phi_X, we obtain

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

which is finite by Lemma 2.4. This completes the bound on D_2^{(q)}(x).

Finally we consider W_V^{(q)}(x, y). This follows from the analytic extension in Proposition A.1, that is

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

Considering the range of q produces the required bound.

The proof substantially follows [Bertoin1997, Proposition 1], and in part makes use of that result directly.

To begin with, we note that since \zeta occurs at finite rate, we may retain or omit it (i.e., consider V or U) from the probability under consideration without changing the question of positivity, and we so freely in what follows.

Suppose first that x\le y. Then

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

since W_V^{(0)}(\cdot, b) is strictly increasing. For y<x, it is sufficient to show that \mathbb{P}_x(\tau_y^-<\tau_b^-) > 0.

When 0<y<x, it is clear that \mathbb{P}_x(\tau_y^-<\tau_b^-) > 0, since this reduces to a question about the Lévy process X.

Assume now that, in Assumption (A1), there exists some b<\ell<0 in the support of \Pi_Y. When y<x<0, [Bertoin1997, Proposition 1] shows that

since the latter probability concerns just the Lévy process Y. On the other hand when y<0<x, we note that by considering just X, \mathbb{P}_x(\tau_0^- < \tau_b^-)>0, and on this event we apply the Markov property at \tau_0^- and reduce to the preceding case. This concludes the proof under one of the alternatives of Assumption (A1).

Now assume the other alternative of Assumption (A1): there exists some \ell<b in the support of \Pi_X, and fix y<x with y<0, which is the case that remains open. \Pi_X(\ell-\varepsilon,\ell+\varepsilon)>0 for some 0<\varepsilon<y-b. Notice that y-\ell-\varepsilon/2>0. Since we have already proved the result when starting from and hitting points above 0, we know that \mathbb{P}_x(H_{y-\ell-\varepsilon/2} < \tau_b^-)>0. On this event, using the a.s. right-continuity of paths at H_{y - \ell - \varepsilon/2}, for some \delta > 0 we have with positive probability that

Within this short interval of time, the process may, again with positive probability, experience a jump with size in (\ell-\varepsilon,\ell+\varepsilon) with positive probability. On this event, U lands below level y, but above b, before exiting the interval (b, \infty). This completes the proof.

It follows from Lemma 3.2 that for sufficiently large L and for x,y\in (b,L),

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

The case, when x<y, it is clear that the resolvent density in Lemma 2.2 is positive, since W_V(x, y), W^{(q_X)}(x-y) both are identically zero.

So, we are concerned only with the case when x>y. For the case, when y<0, using this type of event a few times (and noticing that one can hit y<x only by passing below it first) we obtain

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

with the last line following from the two-sided exit problem, Lemma 2.1.

Looking at the resolvent density r_{(b,L)}^{(0)} in Lemma 2.2, we see that r_{(b,L)}^{(0)}(x,y) > 0 for all b<y<0. Similarly, for the case when y>0, we notice that

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

using Lévy process arguments, and substitute in (?) to obtain

Comparing again with the resolvent density, we see that r_{(b,L)}^{(0)}(x,y)>0 for x>y>0.

Consequently, we have R^{(0)}_{(b,L)}(x,A) > 0 for the resolvent applied to any A of positive Lebesgue measure. Notice that this proves Lebesgue irreducibility of the process killed on exiting (b,L); this will be used in a subsequent proof.

We note here, for future use, that these arguments are valid for L \ge \max\{-\sup(\operatorname{supp} \Pi_X) + b, 0\} under ??, and for any L>0 under ??.

Since L can be chosen arbitrarily large, this completes the proof.

Fix c<d and x\in (c,d). Let us write H_x^{(n)} for the n-th hitting time of x by X before exiting the interval (c,d), with H^{(0)}_x = 0 and \{H_x^{(n)}=\infty\} denoting the event that X leaves the interval before the n-th return to x. Under Assumption ?, [Bertoin1997, Proposition 1] implies that there exist h, \epsilon>0 such that \mathbb{P}_x\left(H_x\in(h, \infty)\right)>\epsilon. For every t>0,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

This concludes the proof.

Let A \subset (0, \infty) be a set of positive Lebesgue measure. Fix a small \varepsilon > 0, and partition (0, \infty) into intervals of length strictly less than \alpha_2 - \alpha_1. There exists at least one interval in this partition, say [a_1,a_2], such that A \cap [a_1,a_2] has positive Lebesgue measure. By construction, a_2 - a_1 < \alpha_2 - \alpha_1, which implies

so the open interval (a_2 + \alpha_1, \, a_1 + \alpha_2) is nonempty. Choose an interval I := (\underline{I}, \overline{I}), satisfying

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

For any x\ge 0 and y \in I, [Bertoin1997, Proposition 1] implies that there exists t_0 = t_0(x,y,A) such that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

We decompose the process X as

where \tilde{X} and J are independent, with \tilde{X}_0=y and J_0=0; J is a compound Poisson process whose Lévy measure is the restriction of \Pi_X to [-\alpha_2,-\alpha_1].

Let N_t^J denote the number of jumps of J up to time t. Let \delta = \inf_{u \in (-\alpha_2,-\alpha_1)} \pi_X(u), which is positive by Assumption ?. For y\in I, z \in [a_1,a_2] and t>0, we compute as follows, using the fact that \bar{I}-\underline{I}<a_1 in the first line:

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

The last line uses z - u \in [\alpha_1, \alpha_2], which follows from the construction of I.

The Lévy measure of \tilde{X}, \Pi_X(\cdot \setminus [-\alpha_2, -\alpha_1]), still satisfies Assumption ?. Therefore, by Lemma 3.4, the probability that \tilde{X} remains within I up to t>0 can be chosen arbitrarily large, is also strictly positive, that is,

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

We now consider starting at x\ge 0 not necessarily in I. By the strong Markov property at H_y, for every t>t_0,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

Combining this with (?), we obtain

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

where

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

By (Proof) and (?), m^{x,A}(t)>0 for every t>t_0.

Finally, if t\in[t_1,t_2] with t_1>t_0, then t-s\in[t_1-t_0,t_2] for s\in[0,t_0). Therefore,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

Since the right-hand side is independent of t\in[t_1,t_2] this concludes the proof.

Recall that Assumption ? implies Assumption ?, so we are free to use results proved under the latter condition. Let A \subset (b,0) be a measurable set of positive Lebesgue measure. By the Lebesgue density theorem, there exists a density point

such that A\cap[a_1,a_2] has positive Lebesgue measure for every a_2>a_1. Using ?, let 0<\gamma_1<\gamma_2 be such that \delta\coloneqq \inf_{[-\gamma_2,-\gamma_1]}\pi_Y>0 and a_1+\gamma_2<0. Now take any a_2 with the property that

With these conditions in place, choose an interval I = (\underline{I},\bar{I}) \subset (b,0) such that \bar{I}-\underline{I}<a_1-b and

Having established the existence of intervals I and [a_1,a_2] with these properties, the proof proceeds almost identically to that of Lemma 3.5 (albeit using Lemma 3.2 to go from starting points in I to ones in (b,0)) and therefore we omit it. We note that the difference between the proofs lies in the fact that a_1 and \gamma_2 depend on the set A, which explains the fact that ? is stronger than the corresponding assumption on X.

Initially, fix a set A\subset (0, \infty) of positive Lebesgue measure. Start by considering x>0. From Lemma 3.5, there exists t_0 = t_0(x,A) such that for t>t_0,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

(The presence of killing at time \zeta does not affect this result.) When x \in (b,0], applying Lemma 3.2 allows us to reduce to the case of starting above zero. Again similar argument holds for A \subset (b, 0) by Lemma 3.6.

This will imply that for x\in (b, 0), there exists a time t_0=t_0(x,A)>0 such that for all t>t_0

Finally, take x \in [0, \infty), we again use (?) and iteratively, we have the following. That is, for all x \in (b, \infty) and any set A\subset(b, \infty) of Lebesgue positive measure (\{0\} is ignored as it is Lebesgue zero set), there exits t(x, A) such that for all t>t(x, A):

Thus, we have that for all h>0, x\in (b, \infty) and positive Lebesgue measure set A\subset (b, \infty), the 0-resolvents are positive.

We consider separately the cases A\subset (0,\infty) and A\subset (b,0). We first consider A\subset (0,\infty) and assume that

which can be done by possibly enlarging L, without loss of generality. Next, since W_V(x,b)>0 for all x\in (b,\infty), it follows from Lemma 2.1 that there exists t_L>0 such that

For fixed x\in L, applying the strong Markov property at \tau_x^+,

which yields

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Applying Lemma 3.5 and additionally accounting for the killing at time \zeta, there exists t_0=t_0(d_2,A)>0 such that for all t>t_0,

for some m^{d_2, A}(t)>0.

Let t_1 = t_L+t_0(d_2,A) and take t> t_1 and x\in L. Applying the strong Markov property at \tau_{d_2}^+, we obtain

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

Combining this with (Proof), we deduce that

for some m^{L, A}(t)>0. Moreover, the positivity \inf_{[t_2,t_3]} m^{L,A} > 0 for t_1<t_2<t_3 is inherited from the corresponding property of m^{d_2, A}.

The case A\subset (b,0) is treated in an analogous manner. The only difference is that we now take L=[d_1,d_2] with d_1<0. In this case, we use Lemma 3.2 to replace (Proof) by the inequality

and then proceed as in the proof above, using d_1 as a reference point instead of d_2, and Lemma 3.6 in place of Lemma 3.5.

pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate

pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate

1. Start by taking a non-negative, bounded measurable function f, supported on (0, \infty). We know from Lemma 2.3 that for q\geq 0, for a fixed x \in \mathbb{R} we have:

   pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

   } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \mathbb{E}_x\!\left[ \int_0^{\tau_b^-} e^{-qt} f(V_t)\,dt \right] = \int_{(b,\infty)} f(y)\, r_{b}^{(q)}(x,y)\, dy. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

   pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

   From Lemma 2.5 and Proposition A.1, it can be seen that r_b^{(q)}(x,y) is analytic for q > \max\{\, \inf \Psi_X-q_X,\, -\sigma(b)\}. Now, fix \max\{\, \inf \Psi_X-q_X,\, -\sigma(b) \,\}<q_0<0. By assumption (R), we know that there exists \epsilon = \operatorname*{arg\,inf}\psi_X >0 such that e^{-\Phi_X(q+q_X)y}\leq e^{-\epsilon y} for q\ge q_0 and y\ge 0. Also, note that C\coloneqq\inf_{0\le q\le q_0}D^{(q)}(b)>0, since D^{(\cdot)}(b) is analytic by Lemma 2.5. Therefore, for fixed x and y>0, we have an analytic extension of the above as follows:

   pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

   \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} r^{(q)}_b(x, y) = \sum_{n\geq 0} q^n d_n(x, y) \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

   pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

   Therefore, using Lemma 2.6 and the expression for r_b^{(q)} in Lemma 2.3, we have

   pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

   \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} &\lvert r_b^{(q)}(x,y) \rvert = \left|\frac{e^{-\Phi_X(q+q_X)y}}{D^{(q)}(b)}W_{V}^{(q)}(x,b) \, - W^{(q+q_X)}_X(x-y)\right|\\ & \leq \frac{1}{C}e^{-\epsilon y}W_V^{(q_0)}(x, b)+ W^{(q_0+q_X)}_X(x-y), \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

   pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

   for q\ge q_0 and y\ge 0. Since the right-hand side is non-negative and integrable in y, we can use Fubini’s theorem, to conclude that the integral on the right-hand-side of (?) also has an extension to q>q_0, and therefore for all q > \max\{\, \inf \Psi_X-q_X,\, -\sigma(b)\}. The rest of the argument follows exactly as in Proposition 3 in [Bertoin1997] and this concludes the proof for y > 0.

   For y<0, the same argument works with a slight modification to ensure integrability, as follows. Assume q_0\le q\le 0 where -\max\{\psi_X-q_X,-\sigma(b)\} < q_0 < 0 and fix y\in (b,0). We have by Lemma 2.6 that D^{(q)}\rvert_{(0,b)} is bounded (uniformly in such q) by an integrable function.

2. This is similar to the preceding part, and even a little simpler, since now r_{(b,a)} is written in terms of W_V^{(q)} and W_X^{(q)} alone. We use the bounds on W_V^{(q)}(x,b) from Lemma 2.6 along with classical bounds on the scale functions of X. Since W_{V}^{(q)}(x, b) is analytic in q from Proposition A.1, these show that the resolvent representation of Lemma 2.2 remains valid for all q > -\sigma(b,a).

3. As remarked at the end of Proposition 3.3, for such L, the process killed on exiting (b, L) is Lebesgue irreducible; see the end of the proof of Proposition 3.3. Let a\ge L and suppose, for contradiction, that, for some q < \sigma(b,a) and x_0 \in (b,a), W_V^{(-q)}(x_0,b) = 0.

   Then, by part ? and Lemma 2.2, we see that r^{(-q)}_{(b,a)}(x_0, y) = 0 for all y\in (x_0, a), since the first term in r^{(-q)}_{(b,a)}(x_0, y) is zero by the assumption, and the second term W^{(-q+q_X)}(x_0-y) = 0 since y>x_0. This contradicts the Lebesgue irreducibility of V. Hence W_V^{(-q)}(x,b) > 0 for all x \in (b,a), which establishes the claim.

   pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate

pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate pseudo@enumerate

Under the assumptions in the statement, there exists some q with the properties that

We note that since X drifts to -\infty, \Phi_X(q)>0, and since Y drifts to +\infty, \Phi_Y(q)<0. Moreover, by [Yamato2023_spectrally_positive_Levy, Theorem 1.5],

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

Since -q<-\inf\Psi_Y, it follows that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

By Lemma 2.3, Lemma 2.5, for every x<0,

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

For fixed u<0, the argument used in the proof of Lemma 2.3, with Y in place of X, gives

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

(Here, the positivity in (Proof) ensures that the same two-sided exit argument remains valid for the negative parameter q.) Since u<0 and \Phi_Y(q)<0, the integrand in (?) is eventually negative, and it is decreasing as x\to-\infty. Therefore, we can apply monotone convergence to show that

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

Combining (?) and (?) proves

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

To show the negativity, observe that \Phi_Y(q)<0<\Phi_X(q). Moreover, since X drifts to -\infty, \psi_X'(0+)<0. By convexity of \psi_X,

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

Thus, the numerator of (?) is positive and the denominator is negative, so the limit is negative.

By (Proof), W_Y^{(q)}(-x)>0 for every x<0. It follows from (?) that there exists b_0<0 such that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Fix b\leq b_0. We know from Lemma 2.3 that D^{(0)}(b)>0. Since r\mapsto D^{(r)}(b) is continuous by Lemma 2.5, there exists r_b\in(q,0) such that D^{(r_b)}(b)=0. By definition, \sigma(b) is the smallest positive zero of r\mapsto D^{(-r)}(b), so

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

which completes the proof.

Lemma 4 in [Bertoin1997] states that the mapping

is jointly continuous on \mathbb{C}\times (b,0).

Lemma 5 in [Bertoin1997] gives a lower bound for W_Y in terms of its antiderivative \bar{W}_Y, and this implies (noting that \lim_{\eta\downarrow 0}\bar{W}_Y(\eta)=0) that there exist \eta_1,\eta_2>0 such that

Using the joint continuity and positivity, together with the convergence \lim_{q\to\sigma(b)}D^{(-q)}(b)=0 already established, we obtain

for all x\in (b,b+\eta_2) and y\in (0,\infty).

This divergence implies that the (-\sigma(b))-resolvent associated with the killed process (see Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 3.9) is infinite on every Borel set B\subseteq (0,\infty) with positive Lebesgue measure. This identifies \sigma(b) as the decay parameter of the process.

Finally, (b,b+\eta_2) has positive Lebesgue measure and the process is Lebesgue irreducible. The divergence of the resolvent density rules out transience, and hence the killed process is \sigma(b)-recurrent.

Suppose, for contradiction, that there exists a bounded Borel set L and h>0 such that

Let t_1(L,A) be as in Lemma 3.8, and fix h_1>0. Then, for t\in t_1(L,A)+(0,h_1), the Markov property gives

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

By Lemma 3.8, there exists a constant c_1>0 such that

Hence,

Now

is an unbounded open set in (0,\infty). Since

it follows that for every \varepsilon\in(0,c) there exist infinitely many n such that

Let us call that sequence to be \{n_k\}_{k>0} and hence for all k and t\in t_1(L,A)+(0,h_1),

Therefore, there exists an unbounded open set of times s along which

is bounded away from zero. However, by Theorem 1 of [Kingman1963Ergodic], there exist h_2>0 such that the arithmetic progression \{nh_2:n\ge0\} intersects such an unbounded open set infinitely often. Hence,

This contradicts our assumption on the set A. Hence, proved.

By Lemma 2.5, the function q\mapsto D^{(q)}(b) is analytic in a neighbourhood of q=-\sigma(b). Hence there exist n\in\mathbb{N} (the order of the root) and a constant C>0 such that

Fix x\in (b, 0) and let B\subseteq (0,\infty) be a Borel set with positive Lebesgue measure. As in the proof of Lemma 4.3, there exist constants \eta_1,\eta_2>0 such that

Using the representation of the resolvent density r_b^{(q)}, together with the asymptotic behaviour of D^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(b), we obtain

for some constant c(B)>0.

Applying Karamata’s Tauberian theorem (see [BinghamGoldieTeugels1989, Theorem 1.7.1]), we deduce that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

where

We now show that the killed process is \sigma(b)-positive recurrent.

Suppose, for contradiction, that the killed process is \sigma(b)-null recurrent. Since the process is simultaneously Lebesgue irreducible (see Proposition 3.7), [TuominenTweedie1979, Theorem 4] implies that for every h>0, the h-skeleton chain (Q_{nh})_{n\ge 0} is e^{\sigma(b)h}-null recurrent, in the discrete sense. In particular from Theorem 6 in [tweedie1974], there exists A\subset (b,\infty) and a Lebesgue null set N \subset (b,\infty) such that for all x \in N^c and all h>0,

(The fact that N is independent of h follows from Theorem 6 in [tweedie1974], since the Borel sigma-algebra algebra is countably generated; see also the proof of Theorem 6(ii) in [TuominenTweedie1979].)

pseudo@comment pseudo@comment pseudo@comment pseudo@comment pseudo@comment pseudo@comment pseudo@comment pseudo@comment

By Lemma 4.4, this further implies that for every bounded Borel set G of positive Lebesgue measure with \inf G>b,

Now let G\subset (0, \infty) be a bounded open interval, with \inf G>b. We claim that

is lower semicontinuous. Indeed, for any fixed t>0, the process V is almost surely continuous at time t, since the probability of a jump occurring at a deterministic time is zero; see the remark following Theorem 3.2 in [kyprianou2020scale]. Hence, by the Portmanteau theorem (see Theorem 2.1 in [Billingsley1968]),

which proves the claim.

We may therefore apply the modified Croft lemma in Lemma 4.5 to conclude that

However, this contradicts (?). Hence, the process is \sigma(b)-positive recurrent. Finally, using (?) and Theorem 5(i) in [TuominenTweedie1979] gives us n=1, so q=-\sigma(b) is a simple root.

We have already established, in Proposition 3.9?, that \sigma(b, x) is decreasing in x, which implies that the limit exists; our task is to identify it with \sigma(b). Assume (for contradiction) that there exists some x \in (b,\infty) such that \sigma(b, x) \leq \sigma(b).

Case 1: \sigma(b, x) < \sigma(b). Take a Borel set B \subseteq (\max\{x,0\},\infty) of positive Lebesgue measure. Using the definition of \sigma(b,x) and the expression for r_b^{(-\sigma(b,x))} given in Lemma 2.3 and Proposition 3.9, the (-\sigma(b,x))-potential assigned to B is zero. This contradicts the Lebesgue irreducibility of V (Proposition 3.3).

Case 2: \sigma(b, x) = \sigma(b). Since W^{(q)}_{V}(x,b) is analytic in q \in \mathbb{C}, we may write

If n>1, then W_V^{(q)}(x,b) has a higher order zero than D^{(q)}(b) at q=-\sigma(b) (see Proposition 4.6), which implies (see Lemma 2.2) that the -\sigma(b)-resolvent is zero on any Borel subset of (x,\infty), which contradicts the Lebesgue irreducibility proved in Proposition 3.3.

Therefore n=1, that is, both W^{(q)}(x,b) and D^{(q)}(b) have a simple zero at q=-\sigma(b) = -\sigma(b,x). This implies that the resolvent density r_b^{(-\sigma(b))} is finite everywhere, since the assumption would imply \lim_{q\to \sigma(b)}W^{(-q)}(x, b)/D^{(-q)}(b)<\infty. In particular, the resolvent is finite on some compact set of positive Lebesgue measure. But this contradicts the \sigma(b)-recurrence that we obtained in Lemma 4.3.

Thus, in all cases, we must have \sigma(b, x) > \sigma(b) for all x \in (b,\infty).

Next, since \sigma(b, x) is nonnegative and decreasing in x (for sufficiently large x; Proposition 3.9), and \sigma(b, x)>\sigma(b), the limit

exists, and R \in [\sigma(b),\infty). Suppose for contradiction, that R > \sigma(b). Then, for every x \in (b,\infty) and q \in (\sigma(b), R), we must have

Moreover, by Theorem 1.5 in [Yamato2023_spectrally_positive_Levy], we know that

Therefore, whenever p < q_X-\inf \Psi_X, it follows that

On the other hand, using the fact that -\sigma(b) is a simple zero of the analytic function D^{(\cdot)}(b), there exists \delta > 0 such that

Since (Proof) and (Proof), hold true even in the case when q<0, we still have

Taking \sigma(b) < p < \max\{ R, q_X-\inf\Psi_X, \sigma(b)+\delta\} yields a contradiction: the numerator and denominator on the right-hand side are positive, while the left-hand side is negative. We conclude that, indeed, \lim_{x \to \infty} \sigma(b, x) = \sigma(b).

pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

• (i) We appeal to Lemma 2.1. Fix x\in(b,\infty) and choose a>x. Then, using markov property, we have

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} &\mathbb{E}_x\left[ e^{\sigma(b)t} \frac{W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(V_t,b)} {W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(a,b)}; \, t<\tau_a^+\wedge\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right] \\ &\qquad\leq \mathbb{E}_x\left[ e^{\sigma(b)\tau_a^+}; \, \tau_a^+<\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right] = \frac{W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(x,b)} {W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(a,b)}. \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  Consequently,

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} e^{\sigma(b)t} \mathbb{E}_x\left[ W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(V_t,b); \, t<\tau_a^+\wedge\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right] \leq W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(x,b). \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  By Proposition 4.7,

  W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(y,b)>0, \qquad y\in(b,\infty).

  Therefore, letting a\to\infty and applying the monotone convergence theorem, we obtain

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} e^{\sigma(b)t} \mathbb{E}_x\left[ W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(V_t,b); \, t<\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right] \leq W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(x,b). \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  Thus, W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(\cdot,b) is a \sigma(b)-subinvariant function. Since the semigroup Q is \sigma(b)-recurrent by Lemma 4.3, Theorem 3 of [TuominenTweedie1979] implies that W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(\cdot,b) is, in fact, a \sigma(b)-invariant function for Q.

• (ii) We first show that

  \inf_{y\in B}W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(y,b)>0

  for every bounded Borel set B\subset(b,\infty) satisfying \inf B>b.

  Choose a>\sup B. By Lemma 2.1, for every y\in B,

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(y,b) &= \mathbb{E}_y\left[ e^{\sigma(b)\tau_a^+}; \, \tau_a^+<\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right] W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(a,b) \\ &\geq \inf_{z\in B} \mathbb{P}_z\left( \tau_a^+<\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right) W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(a,b). \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  The right-hand side is strictly positive, as already established. Moreover, Lemma 3.8 implies that for any \varepsilon>0 and any sufficiently large t,

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align*\endcsname[0]\relax} \inf_{y\in B} \mathbb{P}_y\left( \tau_a^+<\tau_b^-\wedge\zeta \right) &\geq \inf_{y\in B} \mathbb{P}_y\left( V_t\in(a,a+\varepsilon); \, t<\tau_b^- \right) >0, \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align*} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

  where we have used that V makes new maxima in a continuous way. Consequently,

  pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

  } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \inf_{y\in B}W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(y,b)>0. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

  pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

  By Proposition 4.6, the semigroup Q is \sigma(b)-positive recurrent. Hence, (?) along with Theorem 5(i) of [TuominenTweedie1979] implies that, for every x\in N^c and every bounded Borel set B\subset(b,\infty) with \inf B>b,

  pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} \lim_{s\to\infty} \frac{1}{s} \int_0^s e^{\sigma(b)t} Q_t\mathbf{1}_B(x) \,\mathrm{d}t = W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(x,b)\nu^*(B), \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

  for some measure \nu^*, which is a \sigma(b)-subinvariant measure.

  We now identify the measure \nu^* explicitly. Fix x\in(b,\infty) and a bounded Borel set B\subset(b,\infty) with \inf B>b. By Proposition 3.9(i), the resolvent representation in Lemma 2.3 remains valid at q=-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon for any \varepsilon>0. Hence,

  pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

  \begin{aligned}} {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@align\endcsname[0]\relax} &\varepsilon\int_0^\infty e^{(\sigma(b)-\varepsilon)t}Q_t\mathbf{1}_B(x)\,dt \\ &= \frac{\varepsilon W_V^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(x,b)} {D^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(b)} \left( \int_{B\cap(0,\infty)} e^{-\Phi_X(q_X-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)y}\,dy + \int_{B\cap(b,0]} D^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(y)\,dy \right) \\ &\quad- \varepsilon\int_{B\cap(0,\infty)} W_X^{(q_X-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(x-y)\,dy - \varepsilon\int_{B\cap(b,0]} W_V^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(x,y)\,dy. \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@align} {\end{aligned}

  pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

  We look at the convergence on the right-hand side of (?), dealing first with the term in parentheses and then with the following line. Choose \Gamma such that

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} \sigma(b)<\Gamma<q_X-\inf\Psi_X. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} {

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  For all sufficiently small \varepsilon>0, -\sigma(b)+\varepsilon\in[-\Gamma,0). Therefore, by Lemma 2.6, D^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}\rvert_{(b,0)} is bounded (uniformly in such \varepsilon) by an integrable function.

  We note that \Phi_X(q_X-\sigma(b)+\epsilon) \downarrow \Phi_X(q_X-\sigma(b)) > 0 as \epsilon \downarrow 0, and Lemma 2.5 gives us the pointwise convergence D^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(y) \to D^{(-\sigma(b))}(y). Therefore, we can apply the dominated convergence theorem to see that the term in parentheses in (?) converges to \nu(B).

  Turning now to the second half of (?), Lemma 2.6 gives us a bound for W_V^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(x,\cdot), uniformly in \varepsilon, by an integrable function. [Bertoin1997, Lemma 4(iii)] provides a similar bound for W_X^{(q_X-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(x,\cdot). Therefore, the term under consideration vanishes upon taking \varepsilon to zero.

  Finally, by Proposition 4.6, -\sigma(b) is a simple zero of q\mapsto D^{(q)}(b). Consequently,

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow0} \frac{\varepsilon}{D^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(b)} = c_D, \qquad c_D := \left( \left. \frac{\partial}{\partial q}D^{(q)}(b) \right|_{q=-\sigma(b)} \right)^{-1}>0. \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} {

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  The analyticity of q\mapsto W_V^{(q)}(x,b) also gives

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} W_V^{(-\sigma(b)+\varepsilon)}(x,b) \longrightarrow W_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(x,b). \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} {

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  Taking limits in (?), we obtain

  pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

  } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation\endcsname[0]\relax} \lim_{\varepsilon\downarrow0} \varepsilon\int_0^\infty e^{(\sigma(b)-\varepsilon)t}Q_t\mathbf{1}_B(x)\,dt = c_DW_V^{(-\sigma(b))}(x,b)\nu(B). \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation} {

  pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

  Hence, comparing (?) and (?) yields by an Abelian theorem

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} } {\csname pseudo@equation*\endcsname[0]\relax} \nu^*(B)=c_D\nu(B). \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} { \@ifundefined{pseudo@equation*} {

  pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

  This extends to arbitrary Borel sets B, so \nu^* = c_D \nu. It follows that \nu is \sigma(b)-subinvariant, and consequently \sigma(b)-invariant by [TuominenTweedie1979, Theorem 4(iii)] and Lemma 4.3.

• (iii) Once we have proved the previous parts, this is a direct consequence of Theorem 3 in [TuominenTweedie1979].

  pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize pseudo@itemize

Fix x\in(b,\infty). Choose y\in(b,\infty) with y>x such that (?) holds at y (by a simple application of Lebesgue density theorem). Decompose the measure

as

where

and

By Lemma 2.1, along with a monotonicity of roots argument and Proposition 4.7, we have \sigma(b, y)>\sigma(b) imply that there exists \varepsilon>0 with \sigma(b, y)-\varepsilon>\sigma(b) and \mathbb{E}_x^\dag\big[e^{(\sigma(b, y)-\varepsilon)(\tau_\partial \wedge\tau_y^+)}\big]<\infty. Therefore,

Therefore the total variation norm of \mu_{x,t}^{(1)} satisfies

as t\to\infty. Thus \mu_{x,t}^{(1)}\to 0 in total variation.

By the strong Markov property at time \tau_y^+ we may write for any measurable set B,

We therefore obtain, using Lemma 2.1 in the first line,

pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline*

pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline* pseudo@multline*

By assumption we have convergence of \mu_{y,t} as t\to\infty. To apply dominated convergence in the expectation, we again note that since \sigma(b, y)>\sigma(b), we have \mathbb{E}_x\!\Big[ e^{\sigma(b)\tau_y^+}\,1_{\{\tau_y^+<\tau_\partial \}} \Big]<\infty. Therefore, we have

Combining this with the vanishing of \|\mu_{x,t}^{(1)}\|_{\mathrm{TV}}, we obtain

This completes the proof.

(i) Local Dobrushin coefficient. This is a corollary of Lemma 3.8, by choosing A=L.

(ii) Lyapunov condition. For x > b and \lambda > 0, we decompose:

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

For the second term, by the strong Markov property at \tau_0^-,

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

For d_1\le y<0, \mathbb{P}_y(\tau_L=0) = 1. For b<y<d_1, we have for \delta>0 that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

and by Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 3.9, when \delta is sufficiently small, this can be expressed in terms of the resolvent density r_{(b,d)}^{(\sigma(b,d_1)-\delta)}(y,z), for b<y,z<d_1. We now proceed to show that this is bounded.

By definition, W_V^{(-\sigma(b, d_1)+\delta)}(d_1,b) > 0 and hence, we have

(using Lemma 2.6 for the first inequality and Lemma 2.1 for the second). This is enough to show that r_{(b,d)}^{(\sigma(b,d)-\delta)}, and hence, (?) is bounded in y for any 0 < \lambda \le \sigma(b,d)-\delta.

Now, for any a>0, the process V up to time \tau_a^-\wedge \zeta is just the Lévy process X with additional killing at rate q_X. Using Corollary 8.8 in [Kyprianou2014], we have

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

This gives us in particular that (?) is finite when \lambda is taken equal to

It is left to us to show the finiteness of the first term in (?). Recall that L = [d_1,d_2] and that d_2>0. So

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

using again (?). It follows that the first term in (?) is also finite at \lambda=\lambda_1. Putting together the pieces, we have that

According to Lemma 3.6 in [ChampagnatVillemonais2023GeneralCriteria], this establishes (?) and (?).

Recall from Theorem 5.1 that

Thus, we may choose \lambda_2 = \sigma(b) + \delta for any \delta>0, so that e^{\lambda_2 t}\mathbb{P}_x^\dag(V_t \in L;\; t < \tau_\partial) \to \infty.

If we take \delta sufficiently small, then Proposition 4.7 ensures

Hence \lambda_2 < \lambda_1, as required.

Fix b<x<a, where a>\max\{x,0\}, and let

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

Let q,r\geq0 with q\neq r and consider

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

We calculate this quantity in two ways. By the strong Markov property at time t and Lemma 2.1,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

Consequently,

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

On the other hand, applying Lemma 2.2 with the function z\mapsto W_V^{(q)}(z,b), we obtain

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

Equating (?) and (?) and rearranging gives

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

Observe that, the expression on the left hand side is independent of x\in(b,a).

We now let x\downarrow b. Since b<0, for all x sufficiently close to b, we have

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

Next, we first note that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Indeed, writing \delta=x-b and assuming, without loss of generality, that q\geq r, we have

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

and this tends to zero as \delta \rightarrow 0.

Moreover, for b<x<0,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

using the monotonicity of W_Y^{(r+q_Y)}. It is clear that the right-hand side tends to zero as x\downarrow b. It follows from (?) that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

Taking r=0 in (?), we obtain the Volterra equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

We next solve (?) by iteration. Iterating (?), for every n\geq1, gives

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

Indeed, the assertion follows by induction from

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

It remains to show that the final term in (?) converges to zero. Recall that

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

The above quantity is well defined by the same argument in Theorem 4.8. We claim that

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation pseudo@equation

The assertion is immediate for n=1. Using Lemma 2.1, we have

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

Suppose it holds for some n\geq1. Then,

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align* pseudo@align*

Since

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

we have

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

This proves (?) by induction. Consequently,

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align pseudo@align

Letting n\to\infty in (?), we conclude that

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation* pseudo@equation*

Thus, for every fixed x>b, the series in (A.1) converges locally uniformly in q\in\mathbb{C} and defines an entire extension of q\mapsto W_V^{(q)}(x,b).