Indexed metadata

Learning the exogenous rate but not the distance to criticality in nearly unstable heavy-tailed Hawkes processes

Mauricio Herrera-Marín

Source record

Source: arXiv

Published: Sep 29, 2026

arXiv: 2609.38268

Open original source ↗

Source abstract

In the nearly unstable heavy-tailed regime of Jaisson and Rosenbaum, where the intensity of a linear Hawkes process converges to a rough square-root Volterra process, we ask what a record of length TT reveals about the relative distance to criticality 1−ρ1-ρ and the exogenous rate μμ. For the first, the information is governed by IT=Tμ(1−ρ)\mathcal I_T=Tμ(1-ρ), not by the number of events; IT\mathcal I_T stays bounded although the event count diverges like T2γT^{2γ}, so no estimator of the relative distance to criticality is uniformly locally consistent. For the second, the Fisher information diverges because the rough limit has an atom at zero: the asymptotic information geometry is singular in the exogenous direction and, unlike the light-tailed case, has no Feller-type threshold. We prove that the joint maximum likelihood estimator of (μ,ρ)(μ,ρ), whose likelihood is jointly concave, recovers μμ consistently at the random rate {QT/log⁡log⁡QT}1/2\{Q_T/\log\log Q_T\}^{1/2} given by the observed information QTQ_T, while its estimate of the relative margin is only tight: the exogenous rate is learned although the endogenous parameter it is coupled to is not. For empty-start records QTQ_T diverges because the rough limit started at zero spends positive time at zero; on windows observed long after the start, still with the branching ratio unknown, learnability holds with probability tending to one as the window grows, through the ergodicity of the rough limit and the atom of its stationary law. We also prove finite-dimensional convergence of the stationary intensity to the stationary rough Volterra process.

Evidence graph

No public relationships recorded yet.

Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.