Statistical Inference in Parametric Preferential Attachment Trees

We apply the general results due to [jagers1975branching] and [nerman1981convergence], as summarized in the appendix, Section ?.

The events of the pure birth process (?) can be represented as T_1<T_1+T_2<T_1+T_2+T_3<\cdots, for independent exponential random variables (T_k)_{k=1}^\infty with rates (f(k))_{k=1}^\infty. The total number of births \xi(t)=\int {1}_{(0,t]}(u)\,\xi(du) at time t is equal to \sum_{l=1}^\infty {1}_{(0,t]}(T_1+\cdots+T_l), which tends to infinity almost surely as t\rightarrow\infty by the assumption that the PAfunction is bounded from below by f(1)>0. The birth times are clearly not restricted to any lattice, and the functions t\mapsto \mathbb{E}[\varphi_i(t)] are continuous almost everywhere in view of their monotonicity. Thus, it suffices to show that the Malthusian parameter exists and to verify conditions (A.1) and (A.1).

Since \int \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u}\,\xi(du)=\sum_{l=1}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda(T_1+\cdots+T_l)},

The left side of the first formula is \int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u}\,\mu(du)=\rho_f(\lambda), and hence this formula verifies equation (?).

First consider the strictly sublinear case, where f(k) \le C k^{\beta}. Because both expressions in the display are monotone in f, we obtain upper bounds on these expressions by evaluating their right sides for f(k) = C k^{\beta}. Because \log(1+x)\ge x/2 for x\in [0,1], we have f(i)/(\lambda+f(i))\le \exp(-\lambda/(2f(i))), for i\ge I_\lambda:= (\lambda/C)^{1/\beta}. Since the quotients and their products are also bounded by 1,

Because \beta<1, the sum in the exponent is of the order l^{1-\beta} as l\rightarrow \infty, and hence the series is finite for every \lambda>0. The function \rho_f is monotone decreasing and tends to zero as \lambda\rightarrow\infty, by the dominated convergence theorem, and to infinity as \lambda\downarrow 0, by the monotone convergence theorem. It follows that the Malthusian parameter {\lambda^*} exists and is contained in (0,\infty). We also conclude that (A.1) is satisfied, for any \lambda\in (0,{\lambda^*}).

The second moment of \int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u}\,\xi(du) is also finite for every \lambda>0. To see this, it suffices to bound the double sum on the right. By the same arguments, for k>I_\lambda,

This is bounded from above by a constant for every k (in fact by a multiple of k^{-\beta}). Inserting this bound in the double sum, we are left with a single sum of the same type as before, except that \lambda is replaced by 2\lambda. We conclude that the second moment of \int_{0}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u} \xi(du) is finite for every \lambda>0 as well.

We have \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda t} \xi(t) = \int_{0}^t \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda t} \xi(du) \le \int_0^t \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u} \,\xi(du), for every t and \lambda>0. Combined with the assumption \varphi_i(t)\le C\xi(t)^2, we see that \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda t}\varphi_i(t)\le C\bigl[\int_0^t \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u/2}\,\xi(du)\bigr]^2. It follows that \mathbb{E} \sup_{t>0} \bigl(\mathrm{e}^{-\lambda t} \varphi_i(t)\bigr)\le C\mathbb{E} \bigl[\int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u/2}\,\xi(du)\bigr]^2<\infty, for every \lambda>0, thus verifying (A.1).

In the case that f(k)=k+\alpha, for \alpha > -1, the function \rho_f takes the form \rho_f(\lambda) = (1+\alpha)/(\lambda-1) (see [rudas2007random]) and hence the Malthusian parameter is {\lambda^*} = 2+ \alpha and the function \rho_f is finite for \lambda>1. We conclude that (A.1) is satisfied. We show below that the second moment of \int_{0}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u} \xi(du) is finite for every \lambda>1 as well. If \varphi_i(t)\le C \xi(t)^r, then \sup_{t>0} \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda t}\varphi_i(t)\le C\bigl[\int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u/r}\,\xi(du)\bigr]^r, which then has a finite moment for any \lambda such that \lambda/r>1 for some r\le 2. Since r can be chosen such that r\le 2 and r<2+\alpha, where 2+\alpha>1, there exists {\lambda}\in(1,{\lambda^*}) that satisfies these restrictions, and hence (A.1) follows.

For i\rightarrow\infty, we have f(i)/({\lambda}+f(i))= \exp(-\log(1+\lambda/(i+\alpha))\asymp \exp(-{\lambda}/(i+\alpha)). Hence, for k\rightarrow\infty, and {\lambda}>1,

Therefore, the double sum in the second moment of \int_{0}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda u} \xi(du) is bounded by a multiple of \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-(2\lambda-1)}, which is finite for \lambda>1.

The random characteristics \varphi_1(t) =h(\xi(t)+1) and \varphi_2(t) = {1}_{\{ t\ge 0\}} satisfy the conditions of Proposition 3.1, and hence Z_t^{\varphi_1}/Z_t^{\varphi_2} converges almost surely to the limit given in the proposition, as t\rightarrow\infty. If \tau_n is the first time that the PAtree \Upsilon_t possesses n nodes, then \tau_n\rightarrow\infty almost surely, as the total number of individuals at any given t is finite, almost surely. (At any given (finite) time, every individual has a finite number of offspring and there can be at most finitely many generations, since a new generation can be formed not faster than an exponential waiting time with mean 1/f(1).) Hence, the sequence Z_{\tau_n}^{\varphi_1}/Z_{\tau_n}^{\varphi_2} converges to the same limit, as n\rightarrow\infty.

The process Z_t^{\varphi_2} simply counts the number of nodes v in the tree at time t, and hence Z_{\tau_n}^{\varphi_2}=n. Since \xi_v(t)+1 is the degree of node v at time t, the quotient can be rewritten as

This is the left side of the corollary, and it remains to identify the limit given in Proposition 3.1 as its right side. The latter is equal to

The denominator is simply 1 and the numerator is \sum_{k=1}^\infty h(k) p_k by identifying p_k from Equation (17) in [gao2017consistent].

Recall the notation \iota_n(f_\theta) for the scaled log likelihood in (?). We show below that \sup_{\theta}\bigl|\iota_n(f_\theta)-\iota(f_\theta)-c_n\bigr|\rightarrow 0, almost surely, for c_n=n^{-1}\sum_{t=2}^n\log (t-1) and

Because \hat{\theta}_n maximizes {\theta}\mapsto \iota_n(f_\theta), it next suffices to show that the limit function {\theta}\mapsto \iota(f_\theta) possesses {\theta}_0 as a well-separated point of maximum, in the sense of [vdvaart2000asymptotic], Theorem 5.7. Since the function {\theta}\mapsto \iota(f_\theta) is continuous on the compact set \Theta, this is equivalent to showing that {\theta}_0 is a unique point of maximum.

Consider the probability distributions q^{\theta}=(q_k^{\theta})_{k=1}^\infty on \mathbb{N}_+ defined by

where the norming constant satisfies

by (3.3). In particular c({\theta}_0)=1 and hence q^{{\theta}_0}_k=p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}. The Kullback–Leibler divergence of q^{\theta} relative to q^{{\theta}_0} can be seen to be equal to \iota(f_{{\theta}_0})-\iota(f_\theta), and is strictly positive unless q^{\theta}=q^{{\theta}_0}. The latter is equivalent to f_{\theta} \propto f_{{\theta}_0}, which is excluded by the identifiability assumption.

We finish by proving the uniform convergence, where we show that the two components of \iota_n(f_{\theta}) converge to the two components of \iota(f_{\theta}). By Fubini’s theorem the difference of the first components satisfies

Because \log f_{\theta}(k)\le C \log k and |u|=u+2u_-, for every u\in\mathbb{R}, this is bounded above by a multiple of

The first series on the left tends to zero almost surely by Corollary 3.2 applied with the function h: j \mapsto j\log j. The terms of the second series are bounded from above by j\log j \,p_j^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} and tend to zero almost surely for every j as n\to \infty by Corollary 3.2 applied with h: k \mapsto {1}_{\{k\}}. Furthermore, the series \sum_jj\log j \,p_j^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} converges. Hence, the second series tends to zero almost surely by the dominated convergence theorem. The two series give an upper bound independent of {\theta} and hence the supremum over {\theta} of the left side of the second last equation tends to zero almost surely.

For the second component of \iota_n(f_{\theta}), we first note that for some constant C not depending on \theta,

The right side tends to zero almost surely as n\rightarrow \infty, as in preceding paragraph. It follows that the supremum over {\theta} of the left side tends to zero almost surely. The limit \sum_kf_{\theta}(k)p_k^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} is a continuous, positive function and hence is bounded away from 0. By the continuous mapping theorem,

By Lemma 9.1 the Césaro’s sums n^{-1}\sum_{t=2}^n\log (S_{f_{\theta}}(t-1)/(t-1)) =n^{-1}\sum_{t=2}^n\log S_{f_{\theta}}(t-1)-c_n have the same limit.

Since \sum_{k=1}^\infty p_k = 1 = \sum_{k=1}^\infty q_k, we have \sum_{k=1}^K (q_k - p_k) = \sum_{k=K+1}^\infty (p_k - q_k), where the terms of the sums are nonnegative by assumption. The strict monotonicity of v_k gives \sum_{k=1}^K (q_k - p_k) v_k < \sum_{k=K}^\infty (p_k - q_k) v_k. Rearranging the terms gives the desired result.

Since both sequences sum to 1, it is impossible that p_k > q_k for every k \in \mathbb{N}_+. If (w_k)_{k=1}^\infty is strictly increasing and p_j \le q_j, then

By mathematical induction, p_k < q_k for every k > j. Then p_k < q_k for any k > K and K+1 the smallest value j with p_j<q_j (which cannot be j=1).

In the case that (w_k)_{k=1}^\infty is strictly decreasing, the sequence w^{-1}_k is strictly increasing, and we apply the preceding argument with p_k=q_k w_k^{-1}/\sum_j q_jw_j^{-1} and the roles of p_k and q_k swapped.

A more illustrative view of (?)

is as follows:

where q^{\scriptscriptstyle (0,\theta)}_k \propto p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} f_\theta(k)/f_{\theta_0}(k) is the probability distribution generated by reweighting (p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)})_{k=1}^\infty with (f_\theta/f_{\theta_0}(k))_{k=1}^\infty.

Fix any \theta \in \Theta' and assume that \theta renders f_\theta/f_{\theta_0} decreasing. By Lemma 4.4 applied with weights w_k=f_\theta/f_{\theta_0}(k), there exists K such that p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} \le q^{\scriptscriptstyle (0,\theta)}_k for k \le K and p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} > q^{\scriptscriptstyle (0,\theta)}_k for k> K. Then Lemma 4.3 with v_k = \dot{f}_\theta/f_\theta(k) (understood component-wise) and the probability distributions p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} and q_k^{\scriptscriptstyle (0,\theta)}, shows that \dot \iota(f_\theta) < 0. If f_\theta/f_{\theta_0} (k) is increasing, then the same argument applies, but we find that \dot \iota(f_\theta) > 0.

By Theorem 4.1 the maximum likelihood estimator \hat{\theta}_n is consistent if {\theta}_0 is identifiable. The \hat{\theta}_n will eventually be interior to the parameter set if {\theta}_0 is interior, and hence satisfy the system of likelihood equations \dot{\iota}_n(f_{\hat\theta_n})=0. Thus, the second assertion of the theorem follows from the first.

By a Taylor expansion of the ith of the likelihood equations, it can be expanded as 0=\dot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta_0})_i+\ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta'_{n,i}})_i ( \hat \theta_n - \theta_0), for \theta'_{n,i} on the line segment between \hat\theta_n and \theta_0 and \ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta})_i the ith row of the second derivative matrix \ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta}). Thus, \ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta'_n}) ( \hat \theta_n - \theta_0)= -\dot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta_0}), where \ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta'_n}) is understood to be the (d\times d) matrix with ith row \ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta'_{n,i}})_i, even though the vector \theta'_{n,i} may be different for different i. The proof can be concluded by showing that \sqrt n \,\dot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta_0})\rightsquigarrow N(0, V_0) and that \ddot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta'_n})\rightarrow -V_0 in probability.

As noted in Section ?, the sequence n\dot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta_0}) is a (vector-valued) martingale. The asymptotic normality can be obtained from the martingale central limit theorem (see Proposition 9.2). Because \mathbb{P}_{\theta}(D_t=k\given{\cal F}_{t-1})=f_{{\theta}}(k)N_k(t-1)/S_{f_{\theta}}(t-1), the martingale differences (\dot f_{{\theta}_0}/f_{{\theta}_0})(D_t)- \mathbb{E}_{{\theta}_0}\bigl((\dot f_{{\theta}_0}/f_{{\theta}_0})(D_t)\given {\cal F}_{t-1}\bigr) possess conditional covariances

As seen in the proof of Theorem 4.1, the sequence S_{f_{{\theta}_0}}(t)/t tends almost surely to \sum_j f_{{\theta}_0}(j)p_j^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}, as t\rightarrow\infty. Corollary 3.2 applied with h equal to the entries of the matrix \dot f_{{\theta}_0}\dot f_{{\theta}_0}^T/f_{{\theta}_0} or the vector \dot f_{{\theta}_0} shows that the preceding display tends almost surely to

In view of equation (3.3), this is equal to the matrix V_0. The averages n^{-1}\sum_{t=2}^n\Sigma_t of the conditional covariances tend to the same limit, by Lemma 9.1.

Because D_t\le t, we bound, using (?),

As this is smaller than \epsilon\sqrt n, eventually for every \epsilon>0, the conditional Lindeberg condition is trivially satisfied. We conclude that \sqrt n \,\dot{\iota}_n(f_{\theta_0})\rightsquigarrow N(0, V_0), by the martingale central limit theorem, for instance, Proposition 9.2.

The Hessian matrix \ddot{\iota}_n (\theta) takes the form

Using Corollary 3.2, the first term in the second line can be shown to converge as n\rightarrow \infty to the expression obtained by replacing P_j(n) by p_j^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}, or equivalently replacing P_{>k}(n) by p_{>k}^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} in the first line. For the second term we first note that S_f(t)/t tends almost surely to \sum_j f(j)p_j^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}, as t\rightarrow\infty, for f equal to \ddot f_{{\theta}}, \dot f_{\theta} or f_{\theta}. By the continuous mapping theorem the terms of the sum converge to the corresponding limit. The second term then converges almost surely to the same limit, in view of Lemma 9.1, still uniformly in {\theta}. By arguments similar to those in the proof of Theorem 4.1, the convergences of both terms can be seen to be uniform in {\theta}.

Finally, the continuity of the limit and consistency of \hat{\theta}_n' for {\theta}_0 give that the \ddot{\iota}_n (f_{\theta_n'}) tends to the limit evaluated at {\theta}_0. This can be seen to be equal to the matrix -V_0 with the help of (3.3), where the two terms involving \ddot f_{\theta} cancel each other.

Because the true parameter is on the boundary of the parameter set, the maximum likelihood estimatormay not solve the likelihood equations. Instead, we use its characterization as the maximizer of the log likelihood. The log likelihood evaluated at the parameter {\theta}_0+h/\sqrt n satisfies

where {\theta}_n'(h) is on the line segment between {\theta}_0 and {\theta}_0+h/\sqrt n. The rescaled maximum likelihood estimator\hat h_n=\sqrt n (\hat{\theta}_n-{\theta}_0) maximizes this process over the set H_n of all h=\sqrt n({\theta}-{\theta}_0) such that {\theta}=({\alpha},{\beta}) belongs to the parameter set \{(a,{\beta}): {\alpha}\in (-1+{\varepsilon},{\varepsilon}^{-1}), {\beta}\le 1\}. Since \hat{\theta}_n is consistent for {\theta}_0, by Theorem 4.1, the set H_n can be further reduced to a set such that \|h\|<\sqrt n\,{\delta}_n, for some {\delta}_n\rightarrow 0. By the arguments in the proof of Theorem 5.1, we have \sup_{\theta} |\ddot \iota_n(f_{\theta})-\ddot \iota(f_{\theta})|\rightarrow 0, in probability. Combined with the continuity of {\theta}\mapsto \ddot \iota(f_{\theta}), we see that \sup_{h\in H_n}|\ddot\iota_n(f_{{\theta}_n'(h)})-\ddot\iota(f_{{\theta}_0})|\rightarrow 0, almost surely. From the nonsingularity and negative definiteness of -V_0=\ddot\iota(f_{{\theta}_0}), we then see that h^T\ddot\iota_n(f_{{\theta}_n'(h)})h<-c\|h\|^2, for every h\in H_n and some c>0, with probability tending to one. Using that 0\in H_n and |h^T\sqrt n\,\dot\iota_n(f_{{\theta}_0})|\le \|h\| O_P(1), we conclude that \hat h_n=O_P(1). Next the argmax continuous mapping theorem (e.g. Corollary 5.58 and Lemma 7.13 in [vdvaart2000asymptotic]) shows that

for H=\{(h_1,h_2): h_2\le 0\} the limit of the sequence of sets H_n and Z_0\sim N(0,V_0) the limit in distribution of the sequence \sqrt n\,\dot\iota_n(f_{{\theta}_0}). The right side has the claimed distribution, by Lemma 9.3 (where we set V = V_0).

Since \sum_{k=1}^\infty a_kP_{>k}(n)=\sum_{j=1}^\infty\sum_{k=1}^{j-1}a_kP_j(n), we can write \dot{\tilde{\iota}}_n(f_{\theta_0})=\phi\bigl(S_n), for S_n= \sum_{k=1}^\infty F_{{\theta}_0}(k)P_k(n), and \phi: \mathbb{R}^d\times\mathbb{R}^d\times \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^d given by \phi(s_1,s_2,s_3)= s_1-\frac1{s_3}s_2. Similarly, it follows from (3.3) that \phi(S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)})=0, for S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}=\sum_{k=1}^\infty F_{{\theta}_0}(k)p_k^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}. The assumption on S_n and the delta-method then give that the sequence \sqrt n \dot{\tilde{\iota}}_n(f_{\theta_0})-\sqrt n \bigl(\phi(S_n)-\phi(S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)})\bigr) tends in \mathbb{R}^d in distribution to a normal distribution with mean zero and covariance matrix V=(I,-I/S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}_3, S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}_2/(S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}_3)^2) W_0(I,-I/S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}_3, S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}_2/(S^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}_3)^2)^T.

The difference between the pseudo score function \dot{\tilde \iota}(f_{\theta}) and \dot\iota(f_{\theta}) is only in their second terms, which are S_{\dot f_{\theta}}/S_{f_{\theta}}(n) for the first and the Césaro averages of these for the second. The Hessian matrices \ddot{\tilde \iota}(f_{\theta}) and \ddot\iota(f_{\theta}) also only differ by the derivatives of the second terms. In the proof of Theorem 5.1 it was noted that the latter are again Césaro averages (see (?)) and they were shown to converge by showing convergence of the individual terms. Thus, this proof applies also in the present situation, and the full proof can be finished as the proof of Theorem 5.1.

In view of Theorem 6.2 it suffices to verify the asymptotic normality of the sequence \sum_{k=1}^\infty F_{{\theta}_0}(k)\sqrt n(P_k(n)-p_k^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)}), for F_{{\theta}_0} as given. Because f_{{\theta}}(k) is constant in k\ge K, so is F_{{\theta}_0}(k) and hence \sum_k F_{{\theta}_0}(k)P_k(n)= \sum_{k\le K}F_{{\theta}_0}(k)P_k(n)+F_{{\theta}_0}(K)P_{>K}(n), and the same for p_k^{\scriptscriptstyle (0)} instead of P_k(n). The desired convergence therefore follows from Proposition B.4 and the continuous mapping theorem.

For every m the difference |\bar{Z}_\theta(n)-Z_{\theta}| is bounded from above by

For every {\varepsilon}>0 there exists m so that every term in the second sum is bounded from above by {\varepsilon} and hence this sum divided by n is bounded by {\varepsilon}. The first term tends to zero as n\rightarrow\infty, for every fixed m. This argument is true also after taking the supremum over {\theta} across.

Since 2h^TZ-h^TV_0h=-\|V_0^{1/2}h-V_0^{-1/2}Z\|^2+Z^TV_0^{-1}Z, the variable \hat h can be seen to be equal to V_0^{-1/2}\Pi_G(V_0^{-1/2} Z), for \Pi_G the projection onto the half space G:=V_0^{1/2}\{h: a^Th\le 0\}= \{g: b^Tg\le 0\}, for b=V_0^{-1/2}a. Therefore, a^T\hat h=b^T\Pi_G(\tilde W) = {1}_{b^T \tilde W \le 0} b^T\tilde W, for \tilde W:= V_0^{-1/2} Z\sim N_d(0,V_0^{-1/2}V V_0^{-1/2}). The proof is complete by setting W : = b^T \tilde W = a^T V_0^{-1} Z.

We fix arbitrary {\kappa}\in\mathbb{N}, and define activities a_i and update vectors {\xi}_i, for i\in [{\kappa}+1], as indicated in (?)–(?), and initial vector X_0 = (1, 0, \dots,0)^T. For every n, the vector (X_{n,1},\ldots, X_{n,{\kappa}}, X_{n,{\kappa}+1}) is then identically distributed to the vector \bigl(N_1(n),\ldots, N_{\kappa}(n), \sum_{j>{\kappa}}N_j(n)(j+{\alpha})\bigr). Since (see, e.g., [billingsley2013convergence, Example 2.4] or [vandervaartwellner, Theorem 1.6.1]) weak convergence in \mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}_+} is the same as convergence of all finite marginals, the first assertion is proved if we can prove convergence of these vectors for every fixed {\kappa}. For this we apply Proposition B.2.

The transfer matrix A=A_\kappa is given by

We can calculate that \det(\lambda I - A_2) = (\lambda - 2-{\alpha})(\lambda + 1 + {\alpha})(\lambda + 2 + {\alpha}). Furthermore, by subtracting ({\kappa}+{\alpha}) times the ({\kappa}+1)-th column from the {\kappa}-th column, next pulling out the factor {\lambda}+{\kappa}+{\alpha} from the {\kappa}-th column and finally adding ({\kappa}-1+{\alpha}) times the {\kappa}-th column to the ({\kappa}-1)-th column, we can see that \det (\lambda I - A_{\kappa} )= (\lambda + \kappa + {\alpha})\det(\lambda I - A_{\kappa-1}). Therefore, by mathematical induction

We conclude that all eigenvalues are real, and that the only positive eigenvalue is \lambda_{1,\kappa} = 2 + {\alpha}, so that certainly \mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits {\lambda}_{2,{\kappa}}<{\lambda}_{1,{\kappa}}/2. The transfer matrix A_\kappa is irreducible.

Thus, the conditions of Proposition B.1 are verified. It suffices to identify the limiting mean.

By (8.6.12) of [hofstadcomplexnet], the limiting degree distribution for PAtrees with the PAfunction f: k \mapsto k+{\alpha} has coordinates

This corresponds to the recursion (with p_1 = (2+{\alpha})/(3+2{\alpha}))

We now verify that v_{1,\kappa} := (2+{\alpha})^{-1} \bigl(p_1, p_2, \dots, p_\kappa, \sum_{l=\kappa+1}^\infty p_l(l + {\alpha}) \bigr) is an eigenvector associated with the eigenvalue 2 + {\alpha} with a_\kappa^T v_{1,\kappa} = 1, and hence obtain that n^{-1} X_n\rightarrow {\lambda}_{1,{\kappa}}v_{i1,{\kappa}}=\bigl(p_1, p_2, \dots, p_\kappa, \sum_{l=\kappa+1}^\infty p_l(l + {\alpha}) \bigr), almost surely.

The first coordinate of A_\kappa (2+{\alpha}) v_{1,\kappa} is \sum_{l > 1} p_l (l + {\alpha} ) = (2+{\alpha}) - p_1(1+{\alpha}) = (2+{\alpha}) p_1, by Lemma B.3. The second to \kappa-th coordinates are equal to (2+{\alpha})p_k, for k=2,\ldots,{\kappa}, by the relation (?). The ({\kappa}+1)-st coordinate of A_\kappa (2+{\alpha}) v_{1,\kappa} is \sum_{l > \kappa} p_l (l + {\alpha}) + (\kappa + {\alpha})(\kappa+1 + {\alpha})p_k, which coincides with (2 + {\alpha}) \sum_{l > \kappa} p_l (l + {\alpha}), again by Lemma B.3.

For k = 1 the left side of the lemma is equal to

This proves the claim for k=1. We proceed by mathematical induction. If the statement is true for any integer up to k-1, then the left side of the lemma is equal to

by the induction hypothesis and the relation (?) between p_k and p_{k-1}. The right side can be reduced to the right side of the lemma.

For the given {\kappa} define an urn process as indicated preceding the proposition. The matrix A_{\kappa} is given by

The matrix A_{\kappa} is irreducible, and its eigenvalues satisfy \mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits \lambda_2 < \lambda_1/2, by assumption. Thus, the vector of empirical degrees \bigl(P_1(n),\ldots, P_{\kappa}(n), P_{>{\kappa}}(n)\bigr), suitably centered and scaled, is asymptotically normal by Proposition B.1. If this is true for every sufficiently large {\kappa}\in\mathbb{N}_+, the infinite sequence in the final assertion of the proposition converges as well.

It remains to sort out the continuity of the asymptotic mean and covariance if the PA function depends continuously on a parameter. Denote the parameter by {\theta} and set q={\kappa}+1. By its definition the map \theta \mapsto A_{\kappa}(\theta) inherits the continuity from the PAfunction. Employing the \min-\max formula ([horn2012matrix, Corollary 8.1.31]),

where x >0 is understood component-wise. By the maximum theorem (e.g. [ok2011real, page 229]), \theta \mapsto \lambda_1(\theta) is continuous. The corresponding eigenvector can be obtained as \operatorname{adj}(C({\theta}))e_1, for \operatorname{adj}(C) the adjugate matrix of C=A_{\kappa} - \lambda_1 I_q. This follows, because C\operatorname{adj}(C) = (\det C) I_q = 0 and \operatorname{adj}(C)e_1\not=0. The latter can be seen from the fact that the range of C, which has dimension q-1, is the null space of \operatorname{adj}(C), as \operatorname{adj}(C) C=0, and e_1 is not in the range of C. Since the adjugate matrix depends continuously on A and {\lambda}_1, so does the eigenvector \operatorname{adj}(C({\theta}))e_1, and this remains valid after scaling. Inspecting the quantities in (?)–(?) and (B.1), we see that the asymptotic covariance matrix is continuous.