8
$\begingroup$

Lognormal distribution belongs to the Gumbel maximum domain of attraction, where:

$F^{logN}(x; \mu,\sigma)=\Phi\left(\frac{\ln x - \mu}{\sigma}\right)$,

$F^{Gum}(x;\mu,\beta) = e^{-\exp\left({-\frac{x-\mu}{\beta}}\right)}$

My question: Do we have $\mu=\mu$ and $\sigma=\beta$ ?

The Generalized Extreme Value distribution also uses notation $\beta=\sigma$ (Gumbel is the limit case $\xi =0$), and comparing the CDFs for Standard-Lognormal and Standard-Gumbel would again imply the parameters coincide. But I am not sure about it, because Gumbel is a limiting case of Lognormal Maxima, so there might be some transformation of the parameters aswell.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Let $X_i \sim_{\text{i.i.d}} \text{LNorm}(\mu,\,\sigma)$ with the meaning that the r.v. $\log X_i$ is normal with mean $\mu$ and standard deviation $\sigma$. Considering $M_n := \max_{1 \leqslant i \leqslant n} X_i$, we know that there exist two sequences $a_n >0$ and $b_n$ such that

$$ \tag{1} \frac{M_n - b_n}{a_n} \to \text{Gum}(0, 1) $$

where $\text{Gum}(\nu,\,\beta)$ denotes the Gumbel distribution with location $\nu$ and scale $\beta$. This means that $F_{M_n}(a_n x + b_n) \to F_{\text{Gum}}(x;\,0,\,1)$ for all $x$.

Quite obviously the two sequences $a_n$ and $b_n$ depend on $\mu$ and $\sigma$, so they could be denoted as $a_n(\mu,\,\sigma)$ and $b_n(\mu,\,\sigma)$. For instance if $\mu$ is replaced by $\mu +1$ then the distribution of $X_i$ is replaced by that of $e X_i$ and the distribution of $M_n$ is replaced by that of $e M_n$, implying that $a_n$ and $b_n$ have to be replaced by $ea_n$ and $eb_n$ to maintain the same limit. Similarly if we replace $\mu$ by $0$ with $\sigma$ unchanged, $X_i$ is to be replaced by $e^{-\mu} X_i$ and then $a_n$ and $b_n$ must be replaced by $e^{-\mu} a_n$ and $e^{-\mu}b_n$.

The question can be formulated as: if we use the sequences $a_n(0, 1)$ and $b_n(0, \,1)$ at the left-hand side of (1) - instead of the due $a_n(\mu,\,\sigma)$ and $b_n(\mu,\,\sigma)$ - do we get $\text{Gum}(\mu,\,\sigma)$ at the right-hand side? The answer is then no, because the parameters of the Gumbel are indeed location and scale parameters, while this is not true for the log-normal. The parameter $\sigma$ of the log-normal impacts the tail, as can be seen by the fact that the coefficient of variation increases with $\sigma$. While $\text{LNorm}(\mu,\,\sigma)$ always remains in the Gumbel domain of attraction, the sequences $a_n$ and $b_n$ must tend to $\infty$ more rapidly as $\sigma$ increases. It can be proved that we can in (1) use sequences $a_n$ and $b_n$ such that $$ b_n(\mu, \sigma) = e^\mu \, b_n(0, 1)^\sigma, \qquad a_n(\mu, \sigma) = \sigma \,(2 \log n)^{-1/2} b_n(\mu,\,\sigma), $$ see Embrechts P., Klüppelberg C. and Mikosch T. table 3.4.4 pp 155-157. If we use sequences $a_n$ and $b_n$ with a wrong $\sigma$, we will not get a non-degenerate limit for the left-hand side of (1), because the growth rates of $a_n$ and $b_n$ are then unsuitable for the tail of $X_i$.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.