Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 73 references

Scaling Limit Theorems for Multivariate Hawkes Processes and Stochastic Volterra Equations with Measure Kernel

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that asymptotically critical multivariate Hawkes processes converge, after rescaling, to the unique solution of a stochastic Volterra equation with a measure kernel, and that every admissible limiting pair arises this way.

desk verdict Substantial and mostly new multivariate Hawkes scaling-limit machinery, but the advertised one-to-one correspondence is proven only under the diagonal-atom assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14459 v1 pith:4U43RJR5 submitted 2024-12-19 math.PR

Wei Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.PR MSC 60G5560F1760H2045D05
keywords HawkesprocessscalinglimittheoremstochasticVolterraequationmeasurekernelextendedBernsteinfunctionpotentialRiccati-Volterrabranchingwithimmigration
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes full scaling limit theorems for multivariate Hawkes processes that are asymptotically critical: after rescaling time by n and space by nθ_n, the point process and its compensated martingale converge weakly to a limit pair (Ξ,M) governed by a multidimensional stochastic Volterra equation with a measure kernel. The kernel is the potential measure Π(dt) associated to a matrix-valued extended Bernstein function Φ, so the limit is fixed by an admissible couple (K,Φ) consisting of a non-negative matrix with unit spectral radius and such a Bernstein function. The paper proves the correspondence is one-to-one: every admissible couple yields a unique limit, and every non-degenerate scaling limit arises from some admissible couple. This matters because it unifies previously separate light-tailed and heavy-tailed limit regimes and identifies the limits as a class of non-Markovian branching processes with immigration whose Laplace functionals are computable through a Riccati-Volterra equation.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the (K,Φ)-potential measure Π(dt), a matrix-valued measure on R+ whose Laplace transform is built from the Schur decomposition of K and the inverse of the block ϕ(λ) determined by Φ; it is the vague limit of the rescaled resolvent densities R(n)(t)dt. The proof mechanism is the convergence of exponential-affine representations: the rescaled Fourier-Laplace functional of each Hawkes process is written exactly in terms of a nonlinear Volterra equation, and these equations are shown to converge to the Riccati-Volterra equation V=W∗Π, W=f+½(V+h)², with the measure Π(dt) acting as the convolution kernel. Uniqueness of that Riccati-Volterra equation is the step that turns relative compactness of all accumulation points into weak convergence of the entire sequence.

What would settle it

Construct a two-type admissible couple (K,Φ) with Π({0}) non-diagonal and an asymptotically critical sequence satisfying Condition 2.3; if two different accumulation points have different laws at some fixed time, the claimed sequence-level weak convergence fails. A shorter check is to exhibit two distinct global solutions of the Riccati-Volterra equation V=W∗Π for such Π, which would directly contradict the uniqueness theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the rescaled Hawkes processes converge, in law and after a time-space rescaling, to the unique weak solution (Ξ,M) of Ξ(t)=Υ(t)+Π∗M(t), where Υ records the accumulated exogenous input, M is the limiting martingale, and Π(dt) is the (K,Φ)-potential measure. Uniqueness is obtained through an exponential-affine representation of the Fourier-Laplace functional: E[exp{f∗dΞ(T)+h∗dM(T)}]=exp{W∗dΥ(T)}, where V∈D(R+;C−) is the unique global solution to the Riccati-Volterra equation V=W∗Π with W=f+½(V+h)². Conversely, the paper constructs, for any admissible (K,Φ), an asymptotically critical sequence of Hawkes processes whose scaling limit is exactly that pair, so the admissible couples classify all non-degenerate limits. The same machinery yields an alternate Volterra representation that separates the drift parameter bΦ from the volatility and jump parameters, and it gives derivative-process regularity when the potential density is locally square-integrable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the potential measure Π has no off-diagonal atom at zero, i.e., Π(0) is diagonal; without it the paper's proof of uniqueness of the Riccati-Volterra equation no longer works, and only subsequential convergence is obtained.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every non-degenerate scaling limit of a multivariate Hawkes process is characterized uniquely by an admissible couple (K,Φ), so studying such limits reduces to choosing the potential measure.
  • The limit pair (Ξ,M) inherits the branching property and behaves as a generally non-Markovian continuous-state branching process with immigration, with Laplace functional computed from the Riccati-Volterra solution.
  • When either Ξ or M is continuous, the convergence holds in the Skorokhod J1 topology and M is a time-changed Brownian motion, M=B∘Ξ.
  • If the potential measure has a locally square-integrable density and Υ is differentiable, the limit intensity has a predictable derivative ξ solving a stochastic Volterra equation with √ξ diffusion coefficient.
  • The equivalent representation separating bΦ gives a criticality criterion for Ξ: subcritical when Π(∞)<∞, critical when λΠ=0 and Π(∞)=∞, and supercritical when λΠ>0.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves the non-diagonal-atom case to subsequential convergence; that case is the natural stress test, since any counterexample with two different accumulation points would mark the precise boundary of the weak convergence theorem.
  • The classification suggests a reverse-engineering recipe: choose a desired Volterra limit, read off (K,Φ), and build Hawkes kernels that realize it; the example with Φ(λ)=b+c(λ+β)^α already recovers fractional-Heston-type equations.
  • One might expect the Riccati-Volterra uniqueness proof to extend beyond Assumption 2.8 by a more general contraction involving the full matrix Π(0), which would remove the stated bottleneck and upgrade many subsequential results to full convergence.
  • A possible extension to marked or nonlinear Hawkes processes would carry the same measure-kernel Riccati equation over, potentially producing jump-type rough volatility limits.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. This paper develops full scaling limit theorems for asymptotically critical multivariate Hawkes processes. Under a Condition 2.3 specifying the asymptotic criticality through a limit matrix K and a matrix-valued extended Bernstein function Φ, the author proves joint weak convergence of the rescaled integrated intensity, point process, and compensated point process in the S-topology (Theorem 2.9). The limit process (Ξ,M) is then characterized in three ways: by an exponential-affine Fourier-Laplace representation in terms of the unique solution of a Riccati-Volterra equation with measure kernel (Theorem 2.12), by the stochastic Volterra equation Ξ = Υ + Π ∗ M (Theorem 2.13), and by an alternate representation separating the drift parameter bΦ (Theorem 2.19). The paper also gives regularity results and a concrete example. The advertised central conclusion in Section 1.3 is a one-to-one correspondence between admissible couples (K,Φ) and unique scaling limits solving the corresponding Volterra equation.

Significance. If the results hold in their advertised generality, this is a substantial contribution: it provides multivariate scaling limits for Hawkes processes beyond the Markovian or light-tailed settings, introduces potential measures of matrix-valued extended Bernstein functions as convolution kernels, and establishes well-posedness of Riccati-Volterra equations with measure kernels, which is genuinely nonstandard. The paper's strengths include detailed proofs of the main theorems, explicit assumptions with no fitted parameters, a constructive existence result for the approximating Hawkes sequences, and a useful potential-theoretic perspective connecting the limit to Lévy subordinators. However, the most important caveat is that the uniqueness of the limit law, and therefore the advertised one-to-one correspondence, is proved only under Assumption 2.8 that Π(0) is diagonal. The paper itself acknowledges in Remark 2.21 that without this assumption only subsequential convergence is obtained. This makes the unconditional claims in the abstract and Section 1.3 stronger than the proved theorems, and the necessary repair is not merely cosmetic.

major comments (1)
  1. [Assumption 2.8; Lemma 4.4; Remark 2.21] The advertised one-to-one correspondence is only established under Assumption 2.8. The uniqueness of accumulation points in Theorem 2.9 is obtained by combining Lemma 4.4, which proves uniqueness for the Riccati-Volterra equation (2.21), with Lemma 5.6, which identifies all accumulation points through the common Fourier-Laplace functional (2.22). Lemma 4.4 uses the diagonality of Π(0) in equations (4.15)-(4.18) to isolate the atom of the measure; for non-diagonal Π(0) the off-diagonal atom terms do not separate in this way. Remark 2.21(1) concedes that in this case the proof of uniqueness 'will no longer work' and only subsequential convergence along accumulation points is available. The gap is non-vacuous: for K = [[0,1],[1,0]] and Φ(λ) = (1-2e^{-λ})I_2, the real Schur decomposition with Q = 2^{-1/2}[[1,1],[1,-1]] gives LΠ(λ) = (1-2e^{-λ})^{-1} Q diag(1,0) Q^T, so Π(0) = [[1/2,1/2],[1/2,1/2]], a non-diagonal atom. Thus the abstract and Section 1.3 statements that every admissible couple yields a unique scaling limit go beyond what is proved; the results are conditional on Assumption 2.8 or on the additional hypotheses of Remark 2.21(2). I recommend either proving uniqueness without the diagonal assumption or restating the main theorems and the concluding correspondence so that the diagonal condition is explicitly included.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Lemma 4.4, last paragraph] The symbol Π is used both for the potential measure and for its distribution function Π(t) = Π([0,t]). In (5.15) the term Π ∗ M(T) is the Lebesgue convolution with the function Π(·), while the Fubini identity immediately after it interprets Π ∗ M(t) as the measure convolution. These two objects are equal, but only after the displayed identity is verified with the distribution-function notation made explicit. As written, the sentence 'By Fubini's theorem, Π ∗ M(T) = ∫_0^T Π ∗ M(t)dt' is ambiguous and potentially confusing; please clarify the two meanings of Π ∗ M.
  2. [Corollaries 2.17 and 2.20; Remark 2.24] In the reduction to the case h ≠ 0, the equation written for V^h should be V^h = h + f ∗ Π + 1/2 (V^h)^2 ∗ Π, and similarly for V^{*,h}; the printed equation V^h = f + h + 1/2 (V^h)^2 ∗ Π drops the convolution on f. The uniqueness argument is unaffected because the f-term cancels in the difference, but the displayed equation is not the equation satisfied by V + h.
  3. [Notation and Proposition C.3] Several auxiliary results are stated without full proofs. Corollary 2.17 says 'The detailed proof of this corollary is omitted', Corollary 2.20 says 'The proof is omitted', and Remark 2.24 announces an intensity convergence result by 'generalizing the proof' of [37] or using [68]. These statements may be acceptable if the arguments are indeed routine, but for a journal submission it would be helpful to provide sketches or precise references that indicate exactly which arguments in [37] and [68] are being extended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main theorems are derived from stated assumptions; self-citations are used as tools and do not smuggle in the target result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that the new convergence theorems are obtained from explicit hypotheses (Condition 2.3, Assumption 2.8, convergence of IH(n)) through stated lemmas and proofs. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the Laplace-transform limit Φ is an assumption, and the potential measure Π is computed from it by the resolvent asymptotics in Lemma 2.7. The uniqueness of the limit law rests on the uniqueness of the Riccati-Volterra equation (2.21), proved in Lemma 4.4 under Assumption 2.8; this is a mathematical hypothesis, not a circular import. The paper explicitly discloses in Remark 2.21 that without the diagonal-Π(0) assumption the uniqueness proof fails and only subsequential convergence is obtained, so the advertised unqualified one-to-one correspondence in Section 1.3 is broader than the proven theorem. That is a gap between the rhetorical summary and the conditional theorems, hence a correctness/limitation issue, not circularity. The paper cites previous work by the same author (Lemma 2.1 from [36], and [37], [68] in Remark 2.24), but these are used as auxiliary tools or examples, not as the content of the central claim, and they do not assume the target limit theorem. Consequently, the core derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new empirical entities are postulated. The new mathematical objects (the (K,Φ)-potential measure, the matrix-valued extended Bernstein functions, and the Riccati-Volterra equation (2.21)) are defined and their existence is proved rather than assumed.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Asymptotic criticality: ||φn||_L1 → K with ρ(K)=1, and √(nθn)(K - Lφn(λ/n)) → Φ ∈ EBF^{d×d}.
    Defines the class of asymptotically critical sequences studied; Assumption 2.2 and Condition 2.3 in Section 2.1.
  • domain assumption K-admissibility: there exist orthogonal Q, upper triangular U (U_II=Id, U_JI=0) and λ+≥0 such that ϕ(λ) is invertible for λ≥λ+.
    Guarantees a unique potential measure Π and controls exponential growth of the rescaled resolvent; Definition 2.5 and Remark 2.6.
  • domain assumption Assumption 2.8: Π(0) is a diagonal matrix.
    Used in Lemma 4.4 to prove uniqueness of the Riccati-Volterra solution (2.21); Remark 2.21 notes the proof fails without it.
  • domain assumption Martingale representation for the intensity process (Lemma 2.1, from Horst and Xu [36]).
    Quoted as a prior theorem and used throughout Section 4 to derive Fourier-Laplace functionals.
  • standard math Existence and uniqueness of nonlinear Volterra equations with absolutely continuous kernels (Proposition B.2 and B.3 from [29]).
    Background result for the pre-limit Volterra equations (4.1) and for the linear resolvent; Appendix B.
  • standard math Lévy subordinator potential theory and Bernstein function representation (Schilling-Song-Vondracek [65], Döring-Savov [21]).
    Used to identify the matrix-valued extended Bernstein function and the potential measure Π; Appendix D.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Scaling Limit Theorems for Multivariate Hawkes Processes and Stochastic Volterra Equations with Measure Kernel." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4U43RJR5

@misc{pith2026241214459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Scaling Limit Theorems for Multivariate Hawkes Processes and Stochastic Volterra Equations with Measure Kernel},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4U43RJR5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14459}
}
read the original abstract

This paper is devoted to establishing the full scaling limit theorems for multivariate Hawkes processes. Under some mild conditions on the exciting kernels, we develop a new way to prove that after a suitable time-spatial scaling, the asymptotically critical multivariate Hawkes processes converge weakly to the unique solution of a multidimensional stochastic Volterra equation with convolution kernel being the potential measure associated to a matrix-valued extended Bernstein function. Also, based on the observation of their affine property and generalized branching property, we provide an exponential-affine representation of the Fourier-Laplace functional of scaling limits in terms of the unique solutions of multidimensional Riccati-Volterra equations with measure kernel. The regularity of limit processes and their alternate representations are also investigated by using the potential theory of L\'evy subordinators.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abi Jaber

    E. Abi Jaber. Weak existence and uniqueness for affine stoc hastic Volterra equations with L1-kernels. Bernoulli, 27(3):1583–1615, 2021

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Abi Jaber, C

    E. Abi Jaber, C. Cuchiero, M. Larsson, and S. Pulido. A wea k solution theory for stochastic Volterra equations of convolution type. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 31(6):2924–2952, 2021

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Abi Jaber, M

    E. Abi Jaber, M. Larsson, and S. Pulido. Affine Volterra pro cesses. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 29(5):3155– 3200, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    A¨ ıt-Sahalia, J

    Y. A¨ ıt-Sahalia, J. Cacho-Diaz, and R. J. A. Laeven. Mode ling financial contagion using mutually exciting jump processes. J. Financ. Econ. , 117(3):585–606, 2015

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    On non-negative solutions of stochastic Volterra equations with jumps and non-Lipschitz coefficients

    A. Alfonsi and G. Szulda. On non-negative solutions of st ochastic Volterra equations with jumps and non-Lipschitz coefficients. arXiv:2402.19203, 2024

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Bacry, S

    E. Bacry, S. Delattre, M. Hoffmann, and J. F. Muzy. Some limi t theorems for Hawkes processes and application to financial statistics. Stoch. Process. Appl., 123(7):2475–2499, 2013

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Bacry, I

    E. Bacry, I. Mastromatteo, and J. F. Muzy. Hawkes process es in finance. Market Microstructure and Liquidity, 1(1):1550005, 2015

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Bacry and J

    E. Bacry and J. F. Muzy. Second order statistics characte rization of Hawkes processes and non- parametric estimation. arXiv:1401.0903, 2014. 45

    arXiv 2014

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Berger and V

    M. Berger and V. Mizel. Volterra equations with Itˆ o integrals-I. J. Integral Equations, 2:187–245, 1980

    1980

  2. [10]

    Berger and V

    M. Berger and V. Mizel. Volterra equations with Itˆ o int egrals-II. J. Integral Equations , 2:319–337, 1980

    1980

  3. [11]

    Berman and R

    A. Berman and R. J. Plemmons. Nonnegative Matrices in the Mathematical Sciences . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 1994

    1994

  4. [12]

    J. Bertoin. L´ evy Processes. Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  5. [13]

    Bielecki, J

    T.R. Bielecki, J. Jakubowski, and M. Niew¸ eg/suppress lowski. Multivariate Hawkes processes with simultaneous occurrence of excitation events coming from different source s. Stoch. Models, 39(3):1–29, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Billingsley

    P. Billingsley. Convergence of Probability Measures . Wiley, New York, NY, 2 edition, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    Br´ emaud and Massouli´ e L

    P. Br´ emaud and Massouli´ e L. Hawkes branching point processes without ancestors. J. Appl. Probab. , 38(1):122–135, 2001

    2001

  8. [16]

    Coutin and L

    L. Coutin and L. Decreusefond. Stochastic Volterra equ ations with singular kernels. In Stochastic Analysis and Mathematical Physics. Progress in Probabilit y, 50:39–50, 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    Crane and D

    R. Crane and D. Sornette. Robust dynamic classes reveal ed by measuring the response function of a social system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. , 105(41), 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Decreusefond

    L. Decreusefond. Regularity properties of some stocha stic Volterra integrals with singular kernel. Potential Anal., 16(41), 2002

    2002

  11. [19]

    H awkes processes on large networks

    Sylvain Delattre, Nicolas Fournier, and Marc Hoffmann. H awkes processes on large networks. 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    Dellacherie and P.A

    C. Dellacherie and P.A. Meyer. Probabilit´ es et Potentiel: Chap. I–IV. Hermann, 1975

    1975

  13. [21]

    D¨ oring and M

    L. D¨ oring and M. Savov. (non)Differentiability and asymptotics for potential densities of subordinators. Electron. J. Probab., 16:470–503, 2011

    2011

  14. [22]

    D. Duffie, D. Filipovi´ c, and W. Schachermayer. Affine processes and applications in finance. Ann. Appl. Probab., 13(3):984–1053, 2003

    2003

  15. [23]

    El Euch, M

    O. El Euch, M. Fukasawa, and M. Rosenbaum. The microstru ctural foundations of leverage effect and rough volatility. Finance Stoch., 22(2):241–280, 2018

    2018

  16. [24]

    S. N. Ethier and T. G. Kurtz. Markov Processes: Characterization and Convergence . Wiley, New York, 1986

    1986

  17. [25]

    F. Gao, Y. Gao, and L. Zhu. Fluctuations and moderate dev iations for the mean fields of Hawkes processes. arXiv: 2307.15903 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gao and L

    F. Gao and L. Zhu. Large deviations for the mean-field lim it of Hawkes processes. arXiv:2301.07585, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Gao and L

    X. Gao and L. Zhu. Large deviations and applications for Markovian Hawkes processes with a large initial intensity. Bernoulli, 24(4A):2875–2905, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Gao and L

    X. Gao and L. Zhu. Transform analysis for Hawkes process es with applications in dark pool trading. Quant. Finance, 18(2):265–282, 2018. 46

    2018

  21. [29]

    Gripenberg, S

    G. Gripenberg, S. O. Londen, and O. Staffans. Volterra Integral and Functional Equations . Cambridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  22. [30]

    A. G. Hawkes. Point spectra of some mutually exciting po int processes. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B , 33(3):438–443, 1971

    1971

  23. [31]

    A. G. Hawkes. Spectra of some self-exciting and mutuall y exciting point processes. Biometrika, 58(1):83–90, 1971

    1971

  24. [32]

    A. G. Hawkes and D. Oakes. A cluster process representation of a self-exciting process. J. Appl. Probab., 11(3):493–503, 1974

    1974

  25. [33]

    Horst and W

    U. Horst and W. Xu. A scaling limit for limit order books d riven by Hawkes processes. SIAM J. Financial Math. , 10(2):350–393, 2019

    2019

  26. [34]

    Horst and W

    U. Horst and W. Xu. Functional limit theorems for marked hawkes point measures. Stoch. Process. Appl., 134:94–131, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Horst and W

    U. Horst and W. Xu. The microstructure of stochastic vol atility models with self-exciting jump dy- namics. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 32(6):4568–4610, 2022

    2022

  28. [36]

    Horst and W

    U. Horst and W. Xu. Functional limit theorems for Hawkes processes. To appear in Probab. Theory Related Fields, 2025

    2025

  29. [37]

    Horst, W

    U. Horst, W. Xu, and R. Zhang. Convergence of heavy-tail ed Hawkes processes and the microstructure of rough volatility. arXiv: 2312.08784. , 2023

    2023

  30. [38]

    Horst, W

    U. Horst, W. Xu, and R. Zhang. The microstructure of roug h volatility models driven by Poisson random measures. In preparation, 2024

    2024

  31. [39]

    Ikeda and S

    N. Ikeda and S. Watanabe. Stochastic Differential Equations and Diffusion Processes . North- Holland/Kodansha, Amsterdam/Tokyo, 1989

    1989

  32. [40]

    Jacod and A

    J. Jacod and A. N. Shiryaev. Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes . Springer, Berlin, 2003

    2003

  33. [41]

    Jaisson and M

    T. Jaisson and M. Rosenbaum. Limit theorems for nearly u nstable Hawkes processes. Ann. Appl. Probab., 25(2):600–631, 2015

    2015

  34. [42]

    Jaisson and M

    T. Jaisson and M. Rosenbaum. Rough fractional diffusions as scaling limits of nearly unstable heavy tailed Hawkes processes. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 26(5):2860–2882, 2016

    2016

  35. [43]

    Jakubowski

    A. Jakubowski. Convergence in various topologies for s tochastic integrals driven by semimartingales. Ann. Probab., 24(4):2141–2153, 1996

    1996

  36. [44]

    Jakubowski

    A. Jakubowski. A non-Skorohod topology on the Skorohod space. Electron. J. Probab., (4):1–21, 1997

    1997

  37. [45]

    D. H. Johnson. Point process models of single-neuron di scharges. J. Computational Neuroscience , 3:275–299, 2010

    2010

  38. [46]

    Jorion and G

    P. Jorion and G. Zhang. Credit contagion from counterpa rty risk. J. Finance, 64(5):2053–2087, 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Karabash and L

    D. Karabash and L. Zhu. Limit theorems for marked Hawkes processes with application to a risk model. Stoch. Models, 31(3):433–451, 2015. 47

    2015

  40. [48]

    Kawazu and S

    K. Kawazu and S. Watanabe. Branching processes with immigration and related limit theorems. Theory Probab. Appl., 16:34–51, 1971

    1971

  41. [49]

    J. Large. Measuring the resiliency of an electronic lim it order book. J. Financial Markets , 10(1):1–25, 2007

    2007

  42. [50]

    J. F. Le Gall. Brownian Motion, Martingales, and Stochastic Calculus . Springer, 2016

    2016

  43. [51]

    L´ epingle and J

    D. L´ epingle and J. M´ emin. Sur l´ ınt´ egrabilit´ e uniforme des martingales exponentielles. Probab. Theory Related Fields, 42:175–203., 1978

    1978

  44. [52]

    Meyer and W.A

    P.A. Meyer and W.A. Zheng. Tightness criteria for laws o f semimartingales. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Statist., 20(4):353–372, 1984

    1984

  45. [53]

    G. O. Mohler, M. B. Short, P. J. Brantingham, F. P. Schoen berg, and G. E. Tita. Self-exciting point process modelling of crime. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 106:100–108, 2011

    2011

  46. [54]

    Mytnik and T

    L. Mytnik and T. Salisbury. Uniqueness for Volterra-ty pe stochastic integral equations. arXiv:1502.05513, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Y. Ogata. Statistical models for earthquake occurrenc es and residual analysis for point processes. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. , 1(401):228–281, 1988

    1988

  48. [56]

    Pardoux and P

    ´E. Pardoux and P. Protter. Stochastic Volterra equations wi th anticipating coefficients. Ann. Probab., 18(4):1635–1655, 1990

    1990

  49. [57]

    D. J. Pr¨ omel and D. Scheffels. On the existence of weak sol utions to stochastic Volterra equations. Electron. Commun. Probab., 28:1–12, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    D. J. Pr¨ omel and D. Scheffels. Stochastic Volterra equations with H¨ older diffusion coefficients.Stoch. Process. Appl., 161:291–315, 2023

    2023

  51. [59]

    D. J. Pr¨ omel and D. Scheffels. Pathwise uniqueness for si ngular stochastic Volterra equations with H¨ older coefficients.Stochastics and Partial Differential Equations: Analysis a nd Computations , 28:1– 59, 2024

    2024

  52. [60]

    P. Protter. Volterra equations driven by semimartinga les. Ann. Probab., 13(2):519–530, 1985

    1985

  53. [61]

    A. N. V. Rao and C. P. Tsokos. On the existence, uniquenes s, and stability behavior of a random solution to a nonlinear perturbed stochastic integro-differ ential equation. Information and Control , 27(1):61–74, 1975

    1975

  54. [62]

    Revuz and M

    D. Revuz and M. Yor. Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion , volume 293. Springer Science & Business Media., 2005

    2005

  55. [63]

    Reynaud-Bouret and S

    P. Reynaud-Bouret and S. Schbath. Adaptive estimation for Hawkes processes; application to genome analysis. Ann. Statist., 38(5):2781–2822, 2010

    2010

  56. [64]

    Rosenbaum and M

    M. Rosenbaum and M. Tomas. From microscopic price dynam ics to multidimensional rough volatility models. Adv. Appl. Probab. , 53(2):425–462, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    R. L. Schilling, R. Song, and Z. Vondracek. Bernstein Functions: theory and applications . De Gruyter, 2012

    2012

  58. [66]

    E. Seneta. Non-negative Matrices and Markov Chains . Springer New York, NY, 1981. 48

    1981

  59. [67]

    Z. Wang. Existence-uniqueness of solutions to stochas tic volterra equations with singular kernels and non-lipschitz coefficients. Statist. Probab. Lett. , 18(9), 2008

    2008

  60. [68]

    W. Xu. Diffusion approximations for marked self-excited systems with applications to general branching processes. Ann. Appl. Probab. , 34(3):2733–2798, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    W. Xu. Stochastic Volterra equations for local times of spectrally positive L´ evy processes with Gaussian components. arXiv:2411.15485, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    W. Xu. Stochastic Volterra equations for the local time s of spectrally positive stable processes. Ann. Appl. Probab., 34(3):2733–2798, 2024

    2024

  63. [71]

    X. Zhang. Stochastic Volterra equations in Banach spac es and stochastic partial differential equation. J. Funct. Anal. , 258(2):1361–1425, 2010

    2010

  64. [72]

    L. Zhu. Process-level large deviations for nonlinear H awkes point processes. Ann. Inst. Henri Poincar´ e Probab. Statist., 50(3):845–871, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    L. Zhu. Large deviations for Markovian nonlinear Hawkes processes. Ann. Appl. Probab., 25(2):548–581, 2015. 49

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.