<ph f="cmr"> </ph><ph f="cmbx">A superprocess involving both branching and coalescing</ph>

### Xiaowen Zhou1 1 E-mail address: zhou@alcor.concordia.ca

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke St. W., Montreal, H4B 1R6, Canada

• Abstract. We consider a superprocess with coalescing Brownian spatial motion. We first prove a dual relationship between two systems of coalescing Brownian motions. In consequence we can express the Laplace functionals for the superprocess in terms of coalescing Brownian motions, which allows us to obtain some explicit results. We also point out several connections between such a superprocess and the Arratia flow. A more general model is discussed at the end of this paper.

Keywords: coalescing simple random walk; coalescing Brownian motion, duality; super process with coalescing Brownian spatial motion; Arratia flow; Laplace functional; Feller's branching process; Bessel process AMS Subject Classification: 60G57; 60J65; 60G80; 60K35

1 Introduction

In this paper we mainly consider the following branching-coalescing particle system which can be described intuitively as follows. A collection of particles with masses execute coalescing Brownian motions. In the mean while the masses for these particles evolve according to independent Feller's branching processes. Upon coalescing those particles involved merge into one particle with their respective masses added up.
The above-mentioned particle system can be described using a measure-valued process $Z$  .
More precisely, the support of ${Z}_{t}$  represents the locations of those particles at time $t$  , and the measure ${Z}_{t}$  assigns to each supporting point stands for the mass for the corresponding particle.
This processes $Z$  , referred as the superprocess with coalescing Brownian spatial motion (SCSM), was first introduced in [5. It arises as a scaling limit of another measure-valued process, which was referred in [3as the superprocess with dependent spatial motion (SDSM). As to SDSM, it arises as a high density limit of a critical branching particle system in which the motion of each particle is subjected to both an independent Brownian motion and a common white noise applied to all the particles. More precisely, the movement of the ${i}^{\text{th}}$  particle is governed by equation $d{x}_{i}\left(t\right)=\sigma \left({x}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)d{B}_{i}\left(t\right)+{\int }_{\mathbb{R}}h\left(y-{x}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)W\left(dy,dt\right),$  where $\left({B}_{i}\right)$  is a collection of independent Brownian motions which is independent of the white noise $W$  ; see [3. A similar model was also studied in [12.
It was shown in Theorem 4.2 of [5that, after appropriate time-space scaling, SDSM converges weakly to SCSM. A functional dual for SCSM was given in Theorem 3.4 of [5. In addition, using coalescing Brownian motions and excursions for Feller's branching process, a construction of SDSM was found in [5, an idea that initially came from [4. In this paper we always denote such a SCSM as $Z$  .
One of the most interesting problems in the study of a measure-valued process is to recover a certain dual relationship concerning the measure-valued process. Such a dual relationship often leads to the uniqueness of the measure-valued process; see [10for some classical examples on super Brownian motion and related processes. It is not hard to show the existence of $Z$  as a high density limit of the branching-coalescing particle system. The main goal of this paper is to propose a new way of characterizing the measure-valued process $Z$  via duality, in which the self duality for coalescing Brownian motions plays a key role. To this end, we first prove a rather general duality on two coalescing Brownian motions running in the opposite directions. We derive this duality from an analogous, essentially combinatorial, fact about coalescing simple random walk. With this duality we can express certain Laplace functionals for $Z$  in terms of systems of coalescing Brownian motions.
We could carry out some explicit computation thanks to the above-mentioned duality. In particular, we first show that, starting with a possibly diffuse initial finite measure ${Z}_{0}$  , ${Z}_{t}$  collapses into a discrete measure with a finite support as soon as $t>0$  . Then we can identify ${Z}_{t}$  interchangeably with a finite collection of spatially distributed particles with masses. When there is such a particle at a fixed location, we obtain the Laplace transform of its mass. The total number of particles in ${Z}_{t}$  decreases in $t$  due to both branching and coalescing. When there is only one particle left at time $t$  , we also recover the joint distribution of its location and its mass. Eventually, all the particles will die out. We further find the distribution of the location where the last particle disappears. Coincidentally, super Brownian motion shares the same near extinction behavior.
Connections between superprocesses and stochastic flows have been noticed before. In [9a superprocess was obtained from the empirical measure of a coalescing flow. Arratia flow serves as a fundamental example of coalescing flow. In this paper we point out several connections between $Z$  and the Arratia flow. More precisely, the support of ${Z}_{t}$  at a fixed time $t>0$  can be identified with a Cox process whose intensity measure is determined by the Arratia flow. A version of ${Z}_{t}$  can be constructed using the Arratia flow. The general Laplace functional for $Z$  can also be expressed in terms of the Arratia flow.
Replacing the Feller's branching process by the square of Bessel process, we discuss a more general model at the end of this paper. The mass-dimension evolution of such a model can also be characterized by coalescing Brownian motions.
The rest of this paper is arranged as follows. As a preliminary, we first state and prove a dual relationship on coalescing Brownian motions in Section  2 . In Section  3 , we define the process $Z$  as a weak limit of the empirical measure for the branching-coalescing particle system. Then we proceed to prove the duality between $Z$  and coalescing Brownian motions. The uniqueness of $Z$  follows from such a duality immediately. We continue to study several properties of this process in Section  4 . We further discuss the connections between the Arratia flow and $Z$  in Section  5 .
At the end, we propose a more general model and establish its duality in Section 6.

2 Coalescing Brownian motions and their duality

An $m$  -dimensional coalescing Brownian motion can be described as follows. Consider a system of $m$  indexed particles with locations in $\mathbb{R}$  that evolve as follows. Each particle moves according to an independent standard Brownian motion on $\mathbb{R}$  until two particles are at the same location.
At this moment a coalescence occurs and the particle of higher index starts to move together with the particle of lower index. We say the particle with higher index is attached to the particle with lower index, which is still free. The particle system then continues its evolution in the same fashion. Note that indices are not essential here, the collection of locations of the particles is Markovian in its own right, but it will be convenient to think of the process as taking values in ${\mathbb{R}}^{m}$  rather than subsets of $\mathbb{R}$  with at most $m$  elements. For definiteness, throughout this section we will further assume that the particles are indexed in increasing order of their initial positions: it it clear that the dynamics preserve this ordering. Call the resulting Markov process $\mathbf{X}=\left({X}_{1},\dots ,{X}_{m}\right)$  .
Write $1\left\{B\right\}\left(.\right)$  for the indicator function of a set $B$  . The distribution of $\mathbf{X}\left(t\right)$  is uniquely specified by knowing for each choice of ${y}_{1}<{y}_{2}<\dots <{y}_{n}$  the joint probabilities of which “balls” ${X}_{1}\left(t\right),{X}_{2}\left(t\right),\dots ,{X}_{m}\left(t\right)$  lie in which of the “boxes” $\right]{y}_{1},{y}_{2}\right],\right]{y}_{2},{y}_{3}\right],\dots ,\right]{y}_{n-1},{y}_{n}\right]$  . That is, the distribution of $\mathbf{X}\left(t\right)$  is determined by the joint distribution of the indicators ${I}_{ij}^{\to }\left(t,\mathbf{y}\right):=1\left\{{X}_{i}\left(t\right)\in \right]{y}_{j},{y}_{j+1}\right]\right\}$  for $1\le i\le m$  , $1\le j\le n-1$  and $\mathbf{y}=\left({y}_{1},\dots ,{y}_{n}\right)$  .
Suppose now that $\mathbf{Y}:=\left({Y}_{1},\dots ,{Y}_{n}\right)$  is another coalescing Brownian motion. The distribution of $\mathbf{Y}\left(t\right)$  is uniquely specified by knowing for each choice of ${x}_{1}<{x}_{2}<\dots <{x}_{n}$  the distribution of the indicators ${I}_{ij}^{←}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right):=1\left\{{x}_{i}\in \right]{Y}_{j}\left(t\right),{Y}_{j+1}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}$  for $1\le i\le m$  , $1\le j\le n-1$  and $\mathbf{x}=\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)$  .
The next “balls-in-boxes” duality is crucial in characterizing the distribution of the measure-valued process concerned in this paper.
Theorem 2.1. Suppose in the notation above that $\mathbf{X}=\left({X}_{1},\dots ,{X}_{m}\right)$  is an $m$  -dimensional coalescing Brownian motion and $\mathbf{Y}=\left({Y}_{1},\dots ,{Y}_{n}\right)$  is an $n$  -dimensional coalescing Brownian motion. Then for each $t\ge 0$  the joint distribution of the $m×\left(n-1\right)$  -dimensional random array $\left({I}_{ij}^{\to }\left(t,\mathbf{Y}\left(0\right)\right)\right)$  coincides with that of the $m×\left(n-1\right)$  -dimensional random array $\left({I}_{ij}^{←}\left(t,\mathbf{X}\left(0\right)\right)\right)$  .
Theorem  2.1 generalizes Theorem 1.1 in [16. Some other more elaborate dualities on coalescing-reflecting Brownian systems can be found in [14and [13.
We first prove the counterpart of Theorem  2.1 for continuous time simple coalescing random walks, which is interesting in its own right. Notice that $\mathbf{X}$  is a coalescing Brownian motion if and only if ${X}_{i}$  is a $\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}_{t}^{\mathbf{X}}\right)$  -Brownian motion for each $1\le i\le m$  , and $\left({X}_{j}-{X}_{i}\right)/\sqrt{2}$  is a $\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}_{t}^{\mathbf{X}}\right)$  -Brownian motion stopped at $0$  , where $\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}_{t}^{\mathbf{X}}\right)$  denotes the filtration generated by $\mathbf{X}$  . Then Theorem  2.1 follows from a straight forward martingale argument proof of the convergence of scaled random walk to Brownian motion.
A $p$  -simple random walk on $\mathbb{Z}$  is a continuous time simple random walk that makes jumps at unit rate, and when it makes a jump from some site it jumps to the right neighbor with probability $p$  and to the left neighbor with probability $1-p$  . An $m$  -dimensional $p$  -simple coalescing random walk is defined in the same way as the coalescing Brownian motion at the beginning of this section. When $p=\frac{1}{2}$  we just call this particle system a simple coalescing random walk.
Some notation is useful to keep track of the interactions among the particles in the coalescing system. Let ${\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  denote the set of interval partitions of the totality of indices ${\mathbb{N}}_{m}:=\left\{1,\dots ,m\right\}$  .
That is, an element $\pi$  of ${\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  is a collection $\pi =\left\{{A}_{1}\left(\pi \right),\dots ,{A}_{h}\left(\pi \right)\right\}$  of disjoint subsets of ${\mathbb{N}}_{m}$  such that ${\cup }_{i}{A}_{i}\left(\pi \right)={\mathbb{N}}_{m}$  and $a  for all $a\in {A}_{i}$  , $b\in {A}_{j}$  , $i  . The sets ${A}_{1}\left(\pi \right),\dots {A}_{h}\left(\pi \right)$  consisting of consecutive indices are the intervals of the partition $\pi$  . The integer $h$  is the length of $\pi$  and is denoted by $l\left(\pi \right)$  . Equivalently, we can think of ${\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  as a set of equivalence relations on ${\mathbb{N}}_{m}$  and write $i{\sim }_{\pi }j$  if $i$  and $j$  belong to the same interval of $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  . Of course, if $i{\sim }_{\pi }j$  , then $i{\sim }_{\pi }k{\sim }_{\pi }j$  for all $i\le k\le j$  .
Given $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  , define ${\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right):=min{A}_{i}\left(\pi \right)$  to be the left-hand end-point of the ${i}^{th}$  interval ${A}_{i}\left(\pi \right)$  . Put ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\pi }^{m}:=\left\{\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{m}:{x}_{1}\le \dots \le {x}_{m}\text{and}{x}_{i}={x}_{j}\text{if}i{\sim }_{\pi }j\right\}$  and ${\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\pi }^{m}:=\left\{\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{m}:{x}_{1}\le \dots \le {x}_{m}\text{and}{x}_{i}={x}_{j}\text{if and only if}i{\sim }_{\pi }j\right\}.$  Note that ${\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  is the disjoint union of the sets ${\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\pi }^{m}$  , $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  .
Write $\mathbf{X}=\left({X}_{1},\dots ,{X}_{m}\right)$  for the coalescing random walk. If $\mathbf{X}\left(t\right)\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\pi }^{m}$  , then the free particles at time $t$  have indices ${\alpha }_{1}\left(\pi \right),\dots ,{\alpha }_{l\left(\pi \right)}\left(\pi \right)$  and the ${i}^{th}$  particle at time $t$  is attached to the free particle with index $min\left\{j:1\le j\le m,j{\sim }_{\pi }i\right\}=max\left\{{\alpha }_{k}\left(\pi \right):{\alpha }_{k}\left(\pi \right)\le i\right\}.$  In order to write down the generator of $\mathbf{X}$  , we require a final piece of notation. Let $\left\{{\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{k}:1\le i\le k\right\}$  be the set of coordinate vectors in ${\mathbb{Z}}^{k}$  ; that is, ${\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{k}$  is the vector that has the ${i}^{th}$  coordinate $1$  and all the other coordinates $0$  . For $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  , define a map ${K}_{\pi }:{\mathbb{Z}}_{\pi }^{m}\to {\mathbb{Z}}^{l\left(\pi \right)}$  by ${K}_{\pi }\left(\mathbf{x}\right)={K}_{\pi }\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right):=\left({x}_{{\alpha }_{1}\left(\pi \right)},\dots ,{x}_{{\alpha }_{l\left(\pi \right)}\left(\pi \right)}\right)$  Notice that ${K}_{\pi }$  is a bijection between ${\mathbb{Z}}_{\pi }^{m}$  and $\left\{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{l\left(\pi \right)}:{x}_{1}\le {x}_{2}\le \dots \le {x}_{l\left(\pi \right)}\right\}$  , and we write ${K}_{\pi }^{-1}$  for the inverse of ${K}_{\pi }$  . For brevity, we will sometimes write ${\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }$  for ${K}_{\pi }\left(\mathbf{x}\right)$  .
Write $B\left({\mathbb{Z}}^{m}\right)$  for the collection of all bounded functions on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  . The generator $G$  of $\mathbf{X}$  is the operator $G:B\left({\mathbb{Z}}^{m}\right)\to B\left({\mathbb{Z}}^{m}\right)$  given by
 $\begin{array}{cccc}Gf\left(\mathbf{x}\right)& :=p{\sum }_{i=1}^{l\left(\pi \right)}f\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{l\left(\pi \right)}\right)+\left(1-p\right){\sum }_{i=1}^{l\left(\pi \right)}f\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{l\left(\pi \right)}\right)& & -l\left(\pi \right)f\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }\right),f\in B\left({\mathbb{Z}}^{m}\right),\mathbf{x}\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\pi }^{m},\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{m}.\end{array}$
This expression is well-defined, because if $\mathbf{x}\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\pi }^{m}$  , then ${\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }$  , ${\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{l\left(\pi \right)}$  and ${\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{l\left(\pi \right)}$  are all in $\left\{x\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{l\left(\pi \right)}:{x}_{1}\le {x}_{2}\le \dots \le {x}_{l\left(\pi \right)}\right\}$  .
Note: From now on we will suppress the dependence on dimension and write ${\mathbf{e}}_{i}^{l\left(\pi \right)}$  as ${\mathbf{e}}_{i}$  .
Write ${\mathbb{Z}}^{\prime }:=\mathbb{Z}+\frac{1}{2}=\left\{i+\frac{1}{2}:i\in \mathbb{Z}\right\}$  . An $n$  -dimensional $q$  -simple coalescing random walk on ${{\mathbb{Z}}^{\prime }}^{n}$  and its generator $H$  can be defined in the obvious way. Such a process, with $q=1-p$  , will serve as the process dual to the $p$  -simple coalescing random walk on ${\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  in the following way.
Fix $\mathbf{x}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  with ${x}_{1}\le \dots \le {x}_{m}$  and $\mathbf{y}\in {{\mathbb{Z}}^{\prime }}^{n}$  with ${y}_{1}\le \dots \le {y}_{n}$  . Put ${I}_{ij}^{\to }\left(t,\mathbf{y}\right):=1\left\{{X}_{i}\left(t\right)\in \right]{y}_{j},{y}_{j+1}\right]\right\}$  and ${I}_{ij}^{←}\left(t,\mathbf{x}\right):=1\left\{{x}_{i}\in \right]{Y}_{j}\left(t\right),{Y}_{j+1}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}$  for $1\le i\le m$  and $1\le j\le n-1$  .
Lemma 2.2. Suppose in the notation above that $\mathbf{X}=\left({X}_{1},\dots ,{X}_{m}\right)$  is an $m$  -dimensional ${\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  -valued $p$  -simple coalescing random walk and $\mathbf{Y}=\left({Y}_{1},\dots ,{Y}_{n}\right)$  is an $n$  -dimensional ${{\mathbb{Z}}^{\prime }}^{n}$  -valued $\left(1-p\right)$  -simple coalescing random walk. Then for each $t\ge 0$  the joint distribution of the $m×\left(n-1\right)$  -dimensional random array $\left({I}_{ij}^{\to }\left(t,\mathbf{Y}\left(0\right)\right)\right)$  coincides with that of the $m×\left(n-1\right)$  -dimensional random array $\left({I}_{ij}^{←}\left(t,\mathbf{X}\left(0\right)\right)\right)$  .
• Proof. For a function $g:\left\{0,1{\right\}}^{m\left(n-1\right)}\to \mathbb{R}$  , a vector $\mathbf{x}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  with ${x}_{1}\le \dots \le {x}_{m}$  , and a vector $\mathbf{y}\in {{\mathbb{Z}}^{\prime }}^{n}$  with ${y}_{1}\le \dots \le {y}_{n}$  , set $\overline{g}\left(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{y}\right):=g\left(1\left\{\right]{y}_{1},{y}_{2}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{1}\right),\dots ,1\left\{\right]{y}_{n-1},{y}_{n}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{1}\right),\dots ,1\left\{\right]{y}_{1},{y}_{2}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{m}\right),\dots ,1\left\{\right]{y}_{n-1},{y}_{n}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{m}\right)\right).$  We may assume that $\mathbf{X}$  and $\mathbf{Y}$  are defined on the same probability space $\left(\Omega ,\mathcal{ℱ},\mathbb{P}\right)$  . We need to show that  $\begin{array}{c}\mathbb{P}\left[\overline{g}\left(\mathbf{X}\left(t\right);\mathbf{Y}\left(0\right)\right)\right]=\mathbb{P}\left[\overline{g}\left(\mathbf{X}\left(0\right);\mathbf{Y}\left(t\right)\right)\right].\end{array}$ (2.1)
For $\mathbf{x}\in {\mathbb{Z}}^{m}$  , put ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\left(\cdot \right):=\overline{g}\left(\mathbf{x};\cdot \right)$  , and for $\mathbf{y}\in {{\mathbb{Z}}^{\prime }}^{n}$  , put ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\left(\cdot \right):=\overline{g}\left(\cdot ;\mathbf{y}\right)$  . In order to establish ( 2.1 ), it suffices by a standard argument (cf. Section 4.4 in [6) to show that  $\begin{array}{c}G\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\right)\left(\mathbf{x}\right)=H\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\right)\left(\mathbf{y}\right)\end{array}$ (2.2)
(recall that $G$  and $H$  are the generators of $\mathbf{X}$  and $\mathbf{Y}$  , respectively). Fix $\mathbf{x}\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{\pi }^{m}$  and $\mathbf{y}\in {\stackrel{^}{\mathbb{Z}}}_{{\varpi }^{\prime }}^{n}$  for some $\pi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{m}$  and $\varpi \in {\mathcal{P}}_{n}$  . Put ${I}^{+}:=\left\{i:1\le i\le l\left(\pi \right),{x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}+\frac{1}{2}={y}_{{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}\text{for some}1\le j\le l\left(\varpi \right)\right\}$  and ${I}^{-}:=\left\{i:1\le i\le l\left(\pi \right),{x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}-\frac{1}{2}={y}_{{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}\text{for some}1\le j\le l\left(\varpi \right)\right\}.$  Similarly, put ${J}^{-}:=\left\{j:1\le j\le l\left(\varpi \right),{y}_{{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}-\frac{1}{2}={x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}\text{for some}1\le i\le l\left(\pi \right)\right\}$  and ${J}^{+}:=\left\{j:1\le j\le l\left(\varpi \right),{y}_{{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}+\frac{1}{2}={x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}\text{for some}1\le i\le l\left(\pi \right)\right\}.$  Recall that ${x}_{{\alpha }_{1}\left(\pi \right)}<\dots <{x}_{{\alpha }_{l\left(\pi \right)}\left(\pi \right)}$  and ${y}_{{\alpha }_{1}\left(\varpi \right)}<\dots <{y}_{{\alpha }_{l\left(\varpi \right)}\left(\varpi \right)}$  . Therefore, for each $i\in {I}^{+}$  there is a unique $j\in {J}^{-}$  such that ${x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}+\frac{1}{2}={y}_{{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}$  and vice versa. Fix such a pair $\left(i,j\right)$  .
Observe that ${\mathbf{x}}^{\prime }:=\mathbf{x}+{\sum }_{k\in {A}_{i}\left(\pi \right)}{\mathbf{e}}_{k}^{m}={K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)$  and ${\mathbf{y}}^{\prime }:=\mathbf{y}-{\sum }_{k\in {A}_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}{\mathbf{e}}_{k}^{n}={K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{j}\right).$  We are going to verify that  $\begin{array}{c}\left(1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)\right)=\left(1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)\right)\end{array}$ (2.3)
by considering all the possible scenarios.
Given any ${i}^{\prime }\in {A}_{i}\left(\pi \right)$  we have:
• $\bullet$  for ${j}^{\prime }={\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)-1$  ,  $\begin{array}{cccccc}& 1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}+1\right)& & =0& & =1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}-1\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right),\end{array}$
• $\bullet$  for ${\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)\le {j}^{\prime }  ,  $\begin{array}{cccccc}& 1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}+1\right)& & =0& & =1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}-1,{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}-1\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right),\end{array}$
• $\bullet$  for ${j}^{\prime }=max{A}_{j}\left(\varpi \right)$  ,  $\begin{array}{cccccc}& 1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}+1\right)& & =1& & =1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}-1,{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right),\end{array}$
• $\bullet$  and for ${j}^{\prime }<{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)-1$  or ${j}^{\prime }>max{A}_{j}\left(\varpi \right)$  ,  $\begin{array}{cccccc}& 1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}+1\right)& & =0& & =1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right).\end{array}$
Moreover, given any ${i}^{\prime }\notin {A}_{i}\left(\pi \right)$  , we have ${x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\ne {x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}$  . Hence
• $\bullet$  for ${j}^{\prime }={\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)-1$  , $1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}-1\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right),$
• $\bullet$  for ${j}^{\prime }=max{A}_{j}\left(\varpi \right)$  , $1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}-1,{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right),$
• $\bullet$  for ${\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)\le {j}^{\prime }  , $1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}-1,{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}-1\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right),$
• $\bullet$  and for ${j}^{\prime }<{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)-1$  or ${j}^{\prime }>max{A}_{j}\left(\varpi \right)$  , $1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}^{\prime }\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }},{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)=1\left\{\right]{y}_{{j}^{\prime }}^{\prime },{y}_{{j}^{\prime }+1}^{\prime }\right]\right\}\left({x}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right).$
Combining the above observations yields ( 2.3 ).
Therefore, ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{j}\right).$  Furthermore, it is easy to see for ${i}^{\prime }\notin {I}^{+}$  that ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }\right)$  and for ${j}^{\prime }\notin {J}^{-}$  that ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{{j}^{\prime }}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }\right).$  Similarly, for any $i\in {I}^{-}$  there exists a unique $j\in {J}^{+}$  such that ${x}_{{\alpha }_{i}\left(\pi \right)}-\frac{1}{2}={y}_{{\alpha }_{j}\left(\varpi \right)}$  and vice versa. For such a pair $\left(i,j\right)$  we have ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{j}\right).$  Furthermore, we see for ${i}^{\prime }\notin {I}^{-}$  that ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{{i}^{\prime }}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }\right)$  and for ${j}^{\prime }\notin {J}^{+}$  that ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{{j}^{\prime }}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }\right).$  Lastly, note that ${\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }\right)=\overline{g}\left(\mathbf{x};\mathbf{y}\right)={\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }\right)$  and so  $\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccc}& G\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\right)\left(\mathbf{x}\right)-H\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\right)\left(\mathbf{y}\right)& & =p{\sum }_{i=1}^{l\left(\pi \right)}\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)-{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }\right)\right)& & +\left(1-p\right){\sum }_{i=1}^{l\left(\pi \right)}\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)-{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }\right)\right)& & -p{\sum }_{j=1}^{l\left(\varpi \right)}\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)-{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }\right)\right)& & -\left(1-p\right){\sum }_{j=1}^{l\left(\varpi \right)}\left({\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)-{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }\right)\right)& & =p{\sum }_{i\in {I}^{+}}{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)-p{\sum }_{j\in {J}^{-}}{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{j}\right)& & +\left(1-p\right){\sum }_{i\in {I}^{-}}{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{y}}\circ {K}_{\pi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{x}}_{\pi }-{\mathbf{e}}_{i}\right)-\left(1-p\right){\sum }_{j\in {J}^{+}}{\overline{g}}_{\mathbf{x}}\circ {K}_{\varpi }^{-1}\left({\mathbf{y}}_{\varpi }+{\mathbf{e}}_{j}\right)& & =0,\end{array}$
as required.
Remark 2.3. For discrete time coalescing simple random walks such a duality is evident from Fig. 7 in [13. But the duality seems to be less apparent for continuous time coalescing simple random walk.

3 Existence and uniqueness

A construction of $Z$  was given in [5using Feller's branching excursions. In this paper we adopt a weak convergence approach, which is commonly used in the study of measure-valued processes.
Recall that a nonnegative valued process $\xi$  is a Feller's branching process with initial value $x\ge 0$  if it is the unique strong solution to the following stochastic differential equation $\xi \left(t\right)=x+{\int }_{0}^{t}\sqrt{\gamma \xi \left(s\right)}dB\left(s\right),$  where $\gamma$  is a positive constant and $B$  is a one-dimensional Brownian motion. $\xi \left(t\right)$  is a martingale.
It has a Laplace transform
 $\begin{array}{c}\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda \xi \left(t\right)\right\}\right]=exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda x}{2+\lambda \gamma t}\right\};\end{array}$ (3.1)
its extinction probability is given by $\mathbb{P}\left\{\xi \left(t\right)=0\right\}=exp\left\{-\frac{2x}{\gamma t}\right\};$  see Section II.1 and II.5 in [10.
Observe that independent Feller's branching processes are additive; i.e. if $\xi$  and $\eta$  are two independent Feller's branching processes (with the same parameter $\gamma$  ), then $\xi +\eta$  is also a Feller's branching process. This fact will be used repeatedly in our discussions.
Write ${M}_{F}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  for the space of finite measures on $\mathbb{R}$  equipped with the topology of weak convergence. Given any finite measure ${Z}_{0}$  on $\mathbb{R}$  , put $\overline{z}:={Z}_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  . For any positive integer $m$  , let $\left({\xi }_{1}^{\left(m\right)},\dots ,{\xi }_{m}^{\left(m\right)}\right)$  be a collection of $m$  independent Feller's branching processes each with initial value $\overline{z}/m$  . Choose $\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{n}\right)$  to be i.i.d. samples from distribution ${Z}_{0}/\overline{z}$  . Let $\left({X}_{1}^{\left(m\right)},\dots ,{X}_{m}^{\left(m\right)}\right)$  be an $m$  -dimensional coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)$  .
Moreover, we always assume that $\left({\xi }_{1}^{\left(m\right)},\dots ,{\xi }_{m}^{\left(m\right)}\right)$  and $\left({X}_{1}^{\left(m\right)},\dots ,{X}_{m}^{\left(m\right)}\right)$  are independent. Let ${\delta }_{x}$  denote the point mass at $x\in \mathbb{R}$  . Then ${Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}:={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}^{\left(m\right)}\left(t\right){\delta }_{{X}_{i}^{\left(m\right)}\left(t\right)}$  defines a ${M}_{F}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  -valued process. From now on we will suppress the dependence of $m$  in ${\xi }_{i}^{\left(m\right)}$  and ${X}_{i}^{\left(m\right)}$  .
Recall that a collection of processes $\left\{{Z}^{\alpha },\alpha \in I\right\}$  with sample paths in $D\left({M}_{F}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right)$  is C-relatively compact if it is relatively compact and all its weak limits are a.s. continuous. The proof of the next lemma is standard; see, e.g. the proofs for Lemma 3.2 in [16and Proposition II.4.2 in [10.
Lemma 3.1. $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  is C-relatively compact.
• Proof. We first check the compact containment condition. For any $\epsilon >0$  and $T>0$  , choose a compact set ${K}_{0}\subset D\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  such that $\mathbb{P}\left\{{X}_{1}\in {K}_{0}^{c}\right\}<{\epsilon }^{2}$  . Let $K:=\left\{{x}_{t}:x\in {K}_{0},t\le T\right\}$  . Then $K$  is compact in $\mathbb{R}$  , and $\mathbb{P}\left\{{X}_{1}\left(t\right)\in {K}^{c},\exists t\le T\right\}\le \mathbb{P}\left\{{X}_{1}\in {K}_{0}^{c}\right\}<{\epsilon }^{2}.$  Write ${N}_{m}:=#{I}_{K}:=#\left\{1\le i\le m:{X}_{i}\left(t\right)\in {K}^{c},\exists t\le T\right\},$  where $#{I}_{K}$  denotes the cardinality of the indices set ${I}_{K}$  . Conditioning on ${N}_{m}$  , by the additivity for Feller's branching processes, we see that ${\sum }_{i\in {I}_{K}}{\xi }_{i}$  is a Feller's branching Process with initial value ${N}_{m}\overline{z}/m$  . Then by Doob's maximal inequality, $\mathbb{P}\left\{{sup}_{0\le t\le T}{\sum }_{i\in {I}_{K}}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)>\epsilon |{N}_{m}\right\}\le \frac{{N}_{m}\overline{z}}{m\epsilon }.$  Therefore,  $\begin{array}{cc}\mathbb{P}\left\{{sup}_{0\le t\le T}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left({K}^{c}\right)>\epsilon \right\}\le \mathbb{P}\left\{{sup}_{0\le t\le T}{\sum }_{i\in {I}_{K}}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)>\epsilon \right\}& \le \frac{\mathbb{P}\left[{N}_{m}\right]\overline{z}}{m\epsilon }\le \overline{z}\epsilon .\end{array}$
For any $f\in {C}_{b}^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  put ${Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(f\right):={\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }f\left(x\right){Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(dx\right)$  . Now we are going to show that $\left\{{Z}_{.}^{\left(m\right)}\left(f\right)\right\}$  is C-relatively compact in $D\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  . By Itô's formula, we have  $\begin{array}{cccc}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(f\right)& ={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}\left[\frac{\overline{z}}{m}f\left({x}_{i}\right)+{\int }_{0}^{t}f\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)d{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right)+{\int }_{0}^{t}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)d{X}_{i}\left(s\right)& & +\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{0}^{t}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime \prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)ds\right].\end{array}$
The additivity for $\left({\xi }_{i}\right)$  gives $\mathbb{P}\left[{sup}_{0\le s\le t}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right)\right]<\infty \text{and}\mathbb{P}\left[{sup}_{0\le s\le t}{\sum }_{i,j=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){\xi }_{j}\left(s\right)\right]<\infty ,t>0,$  then ${\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\int }_{0}^{t}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime \prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)ds$  is C-relatively compact following from the Arzela-Ascoli theorem and Proposition VI.3.26 of [7.
Note that ${〈{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\int }_{0}^{.}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)d{X}_{i}\left(s\right)〉}_{t}={\sum }_{i,j=1}^{m}{\int }_{0}^{t}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){\xi }_{j}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right){f}^{\prime }\left({X}_{j}\left(s\right)\right)d〈{X}_{i},{X}_{j}{〉}_{s},$  where $〈{X}_{i},{X}_{j}{〉}_{s}=s-{T}_{ij}\wedge s$  and ${T}_{ij}:=inf\left\{s\ge 0:{X}_{i}\left(s\right)={X}_{j}\left(s\right)\right\}$  . By Arzela-Ascoli theorem again, $\left\{〈{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\int }_{0}^{.}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)d{X}_{i}\left(s\right){〉}_{.}\right\}$  is C-relatively compact. Theorem VI.4.13 and Proposition VI.3.26 in [7then imply that the collection of martingales $\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\int }_{0}^{.}{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right){f}^{\prime }\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)d{X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right\}$  is C-relatively compact.
Similarly, $\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\int }_{0}^{.}f\left({X}_{i}\left(s\right)\right)d{\xi }_{i}\left(s\right)\right\}$  is also C-relatively compact. Moreover, $\frac{1}{m}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}f\left({x}_{i}\right)\to {Z}_{0}\left(f\right)\text{a.s.}.$  $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\left(f\right)\right\}$  is thus C-relatively compact. Consequently, by Theorem II.4.1 in [10we can conclude that $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  is C-relatively compact.
Write $Z$  for the weak limit of $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  . The Laplace functional of $Z$  can be obtained from the duality in Theorem  2.1 . As a result, its uniqueness is settled.
In the sequel we always write $\left({Y}_{1},\dots ,{Y}_{2n}\right)$  for a coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({y}_{1},\dots ,{y}_{2n}\right)$  with ${y}_{1}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  .
Theorem 3.2. $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  has a unique weak limit $Z$  in $C\left({M}_{F}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right)$  . Given ${a}_{j}>0,j=1,\dots ,n$  , for any ${y}_{1}\le {y}_{2}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  and any $t>0$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\frac{2{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (3.2)
• Proof. We first condition on $\left({\xi }_{1}\left(t\right),\dots ,{\xi }_{m}\left(t\right)\right)$  . By Theorem  2.1 we can show that  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{j}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right\}|\left({\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{j}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\}|\left({\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right],\end{array}\end{array}$ (3.3)
where $\left({Y}_{1},\dots ,{Y}_{2n}\right)$  is independent of $\left({X}_{i}\right)$  and $\left({\xi }_{i}\right)$  .
Now take expectations on both sides of ( 3.3 ) and then condition on $\left({x}_{i}\right)$  and $\left({Y}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)$  . Since ${\xi }_{1}\left(t\right),\dots ,{\xi }_{m}\left(t\right)$  are independent of each other, and they are independent of $\left({x}_{i}\right)$  and $\left({Y}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)$  , it follows from ( 3.1 ) that  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{j}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\}|\left({x}_{i}\right),\left({Y}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right]\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[{}^{m}{\prod }_{i=1}exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)}{m\left\{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\}}\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[{\left(\frac{1}{\overline{z}}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{m\left(2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)\right)}\right\}\right)}^{m}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (3.4)
Let $Z$  be any weak limit of $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  . Let $m\to \infty$  in ( 3.4 ). Then  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccc}& {lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & ={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[{\left(1-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\frac{2{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{m\left(2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)\right)}\right)}^{m}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\frac{2{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (3.5)
We still need to make sure that  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{c}\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (3.6)
To this end we can suppose that ${y}_{1}<{y}_{2}<\dots <{y}_{2n}$  . Then for small enough $\epsilon >0$  , similar to ( 3.4 ) we have  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1}+\epsilon ,{y}_{2j}-\epsilon \right]\right)\right\}\right]-\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1}-\epsilon ,{y}_{2j}+\epsilon \right]\right)\right\}\right]& & \le 1-\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1}-\epsilon ,{y}_{2j-1}+\epsilon \right]\cup \right]{y}_{2j}-\epsilon ,{y}_{2j}+\epsilon \right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =1-\mathbb{P}\left[{\left(\frac{1}{\overline{z}}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)exp\left\{\frac{-2\overline{z}{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}^{\prime }\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j-1}^{\prime \prime }\left(t\right)\right]\cup \right]{Y}_{2j}^{\prime }\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}^{\prime \prime }\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{m\left(2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}^{\prime }\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j-1}^{\prime \prime }\left(t\right)\right]\cup \right]{Y}_{2j}^{\prime }\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}^{\prime \prime }\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)\right)}\right\}\right)}^{m}\right]& & \le 1-\mathbb{P}\left\{{\cap }_{j=1}^{2n}\left\{{Y}_{j}^{\prime }\left(t\right)={Y}_{j}^{\prime \prime }\left(t\right)\right\}\right\},\end{array}\end{array}$ (3.7)
where $\left({Y}_{1}^{\prime },{Y}_{1}^{\prime \prime },\dots ,{Y}_{2n}^{\prime },{Y}_{2n}^{\prime \prime }\right)$  is a coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({y}_{1}-\epsilon ,{y}_{1}+\epsilon ,\dots ,{y}_{2n}-\epsilon ,{y}_{2n}+\epsilon \right)$  . Clearly, ( 3.7 ) converges (uniformly in $m$  ) to $0$  as $\epsilon \to 0+$  . So, ( 3.6 ) holds.
It is clear that the distribution of $Z$  is uniquely determined by ( 3.2 ). So, $Z$  is the unique weak limit of $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  .
The moments of $Z$  can be obtained immediately from ( 3.2 ).
Proposition 3.3. For any ${y}_{1}\le {y}_{2}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  and $t>0$  , we have $\mathbb{P}\left[{Z}_{t}\left({\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right\}\right)\right]=\mathbb{P}\left[{Z}_{0}\left({\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\right)\right]$  and
 $\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[{Z}_{t}^{2}\left({\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right\}\right)\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[{Z}_{0}^{2}\left({\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\right)\right]+\mathbb{P}\left[\gamma t{Z}_{0}\left({\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\right)\right].\end{array}$
Remark 3.4. Another consequence of duality ( 3.2 ) is that $Z$  is a Markov process; see Theorem 3.3 in [16for a proof on a similar model.
Martingale problem is often used to characterize a superprocess. $Z$  is the solution to the martingale problem (see [5): for any $\phi \in {C}^{2}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  , ${M}_{t}\left(\phi \right)={Z}_{t}\left(\phi \right)-{Z}_{0}\left(\phi \right)-\frac{1}{2}{\int }_{0}^{t}{Z}_{s}\left({\phi }^{\prime \prime }\right)ds,t\ge 0,$  is a continuous martingale relative to $\left({\mathcal{ℱ}}_{t}{\right)}_{t\ge 0}$  with quadratic variation process $〈M\left(\phi \right){〉}_{t}=\gamma {\int }_{0}^{t}{Z}_{s}\left({\phi }^{2}\right)ds+{\int }_{0}^{t}ds{\int }_{\Delta }{\phi }^{\prime }\left(x\right){\phi }^{\prime }\left(y\right){Z}_{s}\left(dx\right){Z}_{s}\left(dy\right),$  where $\Delta =\left\{\left(x,x\right):x\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$  .
But a remarkable feature of such a martingale problem is that its solution is not unique.
For example, let ${\xi }_{1}$  and ${\xi }_{2}$  be two independent branching processes each with initial value $1$  .
Let ${B}_{1}$  and ${B}_{2}$  be two independent Brownian motions. Assume that $\left({\xi }_{1},{\xi }_{2}\right)$  and $\left({B}_{1},{B}_{2}\right)$  are independent. Then ${Z}_{t}^{\prime }:={\xi }_{1}\left(t\right){\delta }_{{B}_{1}\left(t\right)}+{\xi }_{2}\left(t\right){\delta }_{{B}_{1}\left(t\right)}$  is another solution to this martingale problem; also see [16for a similar counter example.

4 Some properties

Our first result in this section is a straight forward consequence of Theorem  3.2 .
Proposition 4.1. For any ${y}_{1}\le {y}_{2}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  and $t>0$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda }{2+\lambda \gamma t}{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right)\right\}\right],\lambda >0.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.1)
• Proof. Observe that ${\sum }_{j=1}^{n}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)$  is either $0$  or $1$  , then ( 4.1 ) follows readily from ( 3.2 ).
Proposition  4.1 allows us to carry out some explicit computations on $Z$  . First, by letting $\lambda \to \infty$  we can easily see that $\mathbb{P}\left[{Z}_{t}\left(\left(-\infty ,\infty \right)\right)=0\right]=exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}}{\gamma t}\right\}.$  We are going to further study the probability that ${Z}_{t}$  does not charge on an arbitrary finite interval. For any $x,y,a$  and $b$  , put $\stackrel{~}{x}:=\frac{x-y}{\sqrt{2}},\stackrel{~}{y}:=\frac{x+y}{\sqrt{2}},\stackrel{~}{a}:=\frac{a+b}{\sqrt{2}}\text{and}\stackrel{~}{b}:=\frac{b-a}{\sqrt{2}}.$
Proposition 4.2. Given $a  and $t>0$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccc}\mathbb{P}\left\{{Z}_{t}\left(\right]a,b\right]\right)=0\right\}& =\frac{1}{2\pi t}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyexp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{t\gamma }-\frac{\left(x-\stackrel{~}{a}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}& & \left(exp\left\{-\frac{\left(y-\stackrel{~}{b}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}-exp\left\{-\frac{\left(y+\stackrel{~}{b}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}\right)& & +\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}{\int }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^{\infty }dxexp\left\{-\frac{{x}^{2}}{2t}\right\}.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.2)
• Proof. Let $\lambda \to \infty$  in ( 4.1 ) we have  $\begin{array}{cccc}\mathbb{P}\left\{{Z}_{t}\left(\right]a,b\right]\right)=0\right\}& =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\gamma t}{Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\gamma t}{Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)\right\};{Y}_{1}\left(t\right)\ne {Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]+\mathbb{P}\left\{{Y}_{1}\left(t\right)={Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right\},\end{array}$
where $\left({Y}_{1},{Y}_{2}\right)$  is a coalescing Brownian motion starting from $\left(a,b\right)$  .
To find the distribution of $\left({Y}_{1},{Y}_{2}\right)$  , one could rotate the coordinate system anti-clockwise by $\pi /4$  . Under the new coordinate system $\left({Y}_{1},{Y}_{2}\right)$  becomes a process $\left({Y}_{1}^{\prime },{Y}_{2}^{\prime }\right)$  such that ${Y}_{1}^{\prime }$  is aBrownian motion starting at $\stackrel{~}{a}$  , ${Y}_{2}^{\prime }$  is a Brownian motion starting at $\stackrel{~}{b}$  and stopped at $0$  , and ${Y}_{1}^{\prime }$  and ${Y}_{2}^{\prime }$  are independent. So ( 4.2 ) just follows from the reflection principle for Brownian motion.
Write ${S}_{t}$  for the support of ${Z}_{t}$  . Intuitively, starting with particles of a total initial mass ${Z}_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  , as soon as $t>0$  the particles near $-\infty$  and $\infty$  will die out due to branching. ${Z}_{t}$  is then expected to be supported by a finite set because of coalescence. The next two results concern the cardinality of ${S}_{t}$  .
Proposition 4.3. Given $a  and $t>0$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[#{S}_{t}\cap \right]a,b\right]\right]& & =\frac{b-a}{\sqrt{\pi t}}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi {t}^{2}}{\int }_{a}^{b}dz{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyyexp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{t\gamma }-\frac{\left(x-\sqrt{2}z{\right)}^{2}+{y}^{2}}{2t}\right\}.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.3)
• Proof. It is easy to see from ( 4.2 ) that for any $z\in \mathbb{R}$  ,  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left\{{Z}_{t}\left(dz\right)\ne 0\right\}& & =\frac{dz}{\sqrt{\pi t}}-\frac{dz}{\sqrt{2}\pi {t}^{2}}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyyexp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{t\gamma }-\frac{\left(x-\sqrt{2}z{\right)}^{2}+{y}^{2}}{2t}\right\}.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.4)
Then ( 4.3 ) is obtained by taking integrations on both sides of ( 4.4 ) from $a$  to $b$  .
Proposition 4.4. With probability $1$  , $#{S}_{t}<\infty ,\forall t>0$  .
• Proof. Given $s>0$  , we first claim that $\mathbb{P}\left[#{S}_{s}\right]<\infty$  if ${Z}_{0}$  has a bounded support. Suppose that ${Z}_{0}\left(\right]-b,b\right]\right)=1$  for some $b>0$  . Then by ( 4.4 ),  $\begin{array}{cccccccc}\mathbb{P}\left[#{S}_{s}\right]& =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi {s}^{2}}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dz{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyy\left(1-exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{s\gamma }\right\}\right)exp\left\{-\frac{\left(x-\sqrt{2}z{\right)}^{2}+{y}^{2}}{2s}\right\}& & =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi s}s}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyy\left(1-exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{s\gamma }\right\}\right)exp\left\{-\frac{{y}^{2}}{2s}\right\}& & \le \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi s}s}{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dy{\int }_{-y-\sqrt{2}b}^{y+\sqrt{2}b}dxyexp\left\{-\frac{{y}^{2}}{2s}\right\}& & <\infty .\end{array}$
Our claim is proved.
Now given any integer $j$  , let ${\eta }_{j}\left(s\right)$  be the Feller's branching process with initial value ${\eta }_{j}\left(0\right):={Z}_{0}\left(\right]j,j+1\right]\right)$  . Since ${\sum }_{j=-\infty }^{\infty }\mathbb{P}\left\{{\eta }_{j}\left(s\right)\ne 0\right\}={\sum }_{j=-\infty }^{\infty }\left(1-exp\left\{-\frac{2{\eta }_{j}\left(0\right)}{\gamma s}\right\}\right)\le {\sum }_{j=-\infty }^{\infty }\frac{2{\eta }_{j}\left(0\right)}{\gamma s}=\frac{2\overline{z}}{\gamma s},$  by Borel-Cantelli lemma we have that, with probability $1$  , ${\eta }_{j}\left(s\right)\ne 0$  for only finitely many values of $j$  .
Therefore, for any $t>0$  , with probability $1$  , ${Z}_{t/2}$  must have a bounded support. The Markov property for $Z$  , together with the claim from the first part of the proof, implies that $#{S}_{t}<\infty$  a.s..
Finally, by the Markov property for $Z$  we conclude that $\mathbb{P}\left\{#{S}_{t}<\infty ,\forall t>0\right\}=1$  .
By Proposition  4.4 , as soon as $t>0$  , ${S}_{t}$  becomes a finite set. For any $z\in {S}_{t}$  , we associate it with a particle located at $z$  with mass ${Z}_{t}\left(\left\{z\right\}\right)$  . We can thus identify ${Z}_{t}$  interchangeably with a collection of spatially distributed particles with masses. As time goes on, the total number of particles decreases either because two “alive” particles coalesce into one particle, or because each particle disappears due to its branching.
Since $#{S}_{t}<\infty$  , a small neighborhood of $z$  contains at most one particle in ${Z}_{t}$  . When there is such a particle, we want to find the distribution of its mass. Formally, we are looking for $\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {Z}_{t}\left(\left\{z\right\}\right)\right\};{Z}_{t}\left(\left\{z\right\}\right)>0\right].$
Proposition 4.5. For any $z\in \mathbb{R}$  and $t>0$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {Z}_{t}\left(dz\right)\right\};{Z}_{t}\left(dz\right)>0\right]& & =\frac{dz}{\sqrt{2}\pi {t}^{2}}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyy\left(exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}\right\}-exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{t\gamma }\right\}\right)& & exp\left\{-\frac{\left(x-\sqrt{2}z{\right)}^{2}+{y}^{2}}{2t}\right\}.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.5)
• Proof. We fix $\left({\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)\right)$  first. Apply Theorem  2.1 to $exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]a,b\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right\}1\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]a,b\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)>0\right\}.$  Then condition on $\left({Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right)$  and take an expectation with respect to $\left({\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)\right)$  . Similar to the proof for Theorem  3.2 we have that  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]a,b\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right\};{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]a,b\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)>0\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\};{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)>0\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\}\right]-\mathbb{P}\left[{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)=0\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}\right\}\right]-\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)}{\gamma t}\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.6)
Therefore,  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {Z}_{t}\left(\right]a,b\right]\right)\right\};{Z}_{t}\left(\right]a,b\right]\right)>0\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}\right\}\right]-\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)}{\gamma t}\right\}\right]& & =\frac{1}{2\pi t}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dy\left(exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}\right\}-exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{t\gamma }\right\}\right)& & exp\left\{-\frac{\left(x-\stackrel{~}{a}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}\left(exp\left\{-\frac{\left(y-\stackrel{~}{b}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}-exp\left\{-\frac{\left(y+\stackrel{~}{b}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}\right).\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.7)
So, ( 4.5 ) is obtained by letting $b\to a+$  .
At a fixed time $t>0$  , with a positive probability there can be only one particle (with a positive mass) left. When this happens, we are interested in the joint distribution of the mass and the location of that particle. More precisely, we want to find $\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right\};{Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\ne 0,{S}_{t}\subset dz\right].$
Proposition 4.6. For any $z\in \mathbb{R}$  and $t>0$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right\};{Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\ne 0,{S}_{t}\subset dz\right]& & =\frac{dz}{\sqrt{2}\pi {t}^{2}}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyyexp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}{\right]}^{c}\right)}{\gamma t}-\frac{\left(x-\sqrt{2}z{\right)}^{2}+{y}^{2}}{2t}\right\}& & -\frac{dz}{\sqrt{\pi t}}exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}}{\gamma t}\right\}.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.8)
• Proof. Put $B:=\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right){\right]}^{c}\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)=0\right\}\text{for}{x}_{i}:={X}_{i}\left(0\right).$  It follows from Theorem  2.1 that  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)\right\};{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]a,b\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)>0,{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]a,b{\right]}^{c}\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)=0\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)\right\};{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)>0,B\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\};{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)>0,B\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\};B\right]-\mathbb{P}\left[{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)=0;B\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda \overline{z}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)}{m\left(2+\lambda \gamma t\right)}\right\}exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right){\right]}^{c}\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)}{m\gamma t}\right\}\right]& & -\mathbb{P}\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)=0\right\},\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.9)
where in obtaining the last equation we have used the fact that, given $\left({Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right)$  and $\left({x}_{i}\right)$  , $exp\left\{-\lambda {\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\}\text{and event}\left\{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right){\right]}^{c}\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)=0\right\}$  are independent.
Now letting $m\to \infty$  in ( 4.9 ) we have  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right\};{Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\ne 0,{S}_{t}\subset \left(a,b\right)\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right)\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]{Y}_{1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2}\left(t\right){\right]}^{c}\right)}{\gamma t}\right\}\right]-exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}}{\gamma t}\right\}& & =\frac{1}{2\pi t}{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx{\int }_{0}^{\infty }dyexp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}\right]\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\stackrel{~}{x},\stackrel{~}{y}{\right]}^{c}\right)}{\gamma t}\right\}exp\left\{-\frac{\left(x-\stackrel{~}{a}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}& & \left(exp\left\{-\frac{\left(y-\stackrel{~}{b}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}-exp\left\{-\frac{\left(y+\stackrel{~}{b}{\right)}^{2}}{2t}\right\}\right)& & +\frac{2}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\gamma t}\right\}{\int }_{\stackrel{~}{b}}^{\infty }dxexp\left\{-\frac{{x}^{2}}{2t}\right\}-exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}}{\gamma t}\right\}.\end{array}\end{array}$ (4.10)
Finally, ( 4.8 ) is obtained by letting $b\to a+$  in ( 4.10 ).
Remark 4.7. Let $\lambda =0$  in ( 4.10 ). We then obtain a result on the range of ${S}_{t}$  .
The total number of particles in $Z$  will decrease one by one. Put $\tau :=inf\left\{s\ge 0:#{S}_{s}=1\right\}.$  Then $\tau <\infty$  is the first time when there is exactly one particle left. The distribution of $\tau$  is given in the following Proposition.
Proposition 4.8.
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}\mathbb{P}\left\{\tau (4.11)
• Proof. Observe that  $\begin{array}{cc}\mathbb{P}\left\{\tau
then ( 4.11 ) follows from Proposition  4.6 .
Let $T:=inf\left\{t\ge 0:{Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)=0\right\}.$  $T$  is the time when all the particles disappear. Its distribution can be found easily. $\mathbb{P}\left\{T\le t\right\}=\mathbb{P}\left\{{Z}_{t}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)=0\right\}=exp\left\{-\frac{2\overline{z}}{\gamma t}\right\}.$  Let $F$  denote the location of the last particle immediately before extinction, i.e. $\left\{F\right\}={S}_{T-}$  .
We could recover the explicit distribution for $F$  .
Proposition 4.9. $F$  has the same distribution as ${X}_{T}$  , where $X$  is a Brownian motion with initial distribution ${Z}_{0}/\stackrel{^}{z}$  , and $X$  and $T$  are independent.
• Proof. First assume that ${Z}_{0}={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{i}{\delta }_{{x}_{i}}$  with ${a}_{i}>0$  and ${\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{a}_{i}=a$  . Then ${Z}_{t}:={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right){\delta }_{{X}_{i}\left(t\right)},$  where ${\xi }_{i}\left(0\right)={a}_{i}>0$  and $\left({X}_{1},\dots ,{X}_{m}\right)$  is a coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)$  .
Write ${T}_{i}:=inf\left\{t\ge 0:{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)=0\right\},i=1,\dots ,m$  . Then $T:={max}_{1\le i\le m}{T}_{i}$  . Therefore, $F={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{X}_{i}\left({T}_{i}-\right)1\left\{T={T}_{i}\right\}={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{X}_{i}\left(T\right)1\left\{T={T}_{i}\right\}.$  Our first observation is that $\mathbb{P}\left\{{T}_{i}\le t\right\}=\mathbb{P}\left\{{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)=0\right\}=exp\left\{-\frac{2{a}_{i}}{\gamma t}\right\}.$  Then $\mathbb{P}\left\{T={T}_{i}\right\}={a}_{i}/a$  , and $F={X}_{i}\left(T\right)$  with probability ${a}_{i}/a$  . Our second observation is that conditional on $\left\{T={T}_{i}\right\}$  , the distribution for $T$  is the same as its unconditional distribution. So, $F$  has the same distribution as the random variable obtained by running a Brownian motion $X$  with initial distribution $\mathbb{P}\left\{X\left(0\right)={x}_{i}\right\}={a}_{i}/a,i=1,\dots ,m$  , and stopping it independently at time $T$  . As a result, $F$  has the desired distribution.
By conditioning on ${Z}_{\epsilon }$  and letting $\epsilon \to 0+$  , the conclusion in the proposition also follows for any general initial measure ${Z}_{0}$  .
Remark 4.10. This near extinction behavior is the same as the super Brownian motion (see Theorem 1 in [15).

5 Connections with the Arratia flow

Arratia flow is a stochastic flow which describes the evolution of a continuous family of coalescing Brownian motions on $\mathbb{R}$  . We refer to [1for a detailed account and [2for a survey on stochastic flows. By definition, the Arratia flow is a collection $\left\{\phi \left(s,t,x\right):0\le s\le t,x\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$  of random variables such that
• $\bullet$  the random map $\left(s,t,x\right)↦\phi \left(s,t,x\right)$  is jointly measurable,
• $\bullet$  for each $s$  and $x$  , the map $t↦\phi \left(s,t,x\right)$  , $t\ge s$  , is continuous,
• $\bullet$  for each $s$  and $t$  with $s\le t$  , the map $x↦\phi \left(s,t,x\right)$  is non-decreasing and right-continuous,
• $\bullet$  for $s\le t\le u$  , $\phi \left(t,u,\cdot \right)\circ \phi \left(s,t,\cdot \right)=\phi \left(s,u,\cdot \right)$  ,
• $\bullet$  for $u>0$  , $\left(s,t,x\right)↦\phi \left(s+u,t+u,x\right)$  has the same distribution as $\phi$  ,
• $\bullet$  for ${x}_{1}<\dots <{x}_{m}$  the process $\left(\phi \left(0,t,{x}_{1}\right),\dots ,\phi \left(0,t,{x}_{m}\right){\right)}_{t\ge 0}$  has the same distribution as a coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)$  .
Fix $t>0$  , it is known that $\left\{\phi \left(0,t,x\right):x\in \mathbb{R}\right\}$  , the image of $\mathbb{R}$  under map $\phi \left(0,t,.\right)$  , is a discrete set (see [1). Let $\dots <{x}_{-1}^{*}<{x}_{0}^{*}<{x}_{1}^{*}<\dots$  be a sequence of random variables such that
 $\begin{array}{c}\left\{\phi \left(0,t,x\right):x\in \mathbb{R}\right\}=\left\{\dots ,{x}_{-1}^{*},{x}_{0}^{*},{x}_{1}^{*},\dots \right\}.\end{array}$ (5.1)
Since Brownian motion has continuous sample paths, the Arratia flow is order-preserving; i.e.
$\phi \left(0,t,{x}_{1}\right)\le \dots \le \phi \left(0,t,{x}_{m}\right)$  whenever ${x}_{1}\le ,\dots ,\le {x}_{m}$  . Set ${\Pi }_{i}:=sup\left\{x:\phi \left(0,t,x\right)={x}_{i}^{*}\right\}.$  Write ${\phi }^{-1}\left(0,t,x\right)$  for the pre-image of $x$  under $\phi \left(0,t,.\right)$  Then $\left({\Pi }_{i}\right)$  determines a partition on $\mathbb{R}$  such that ${\phi }^{-1}\left(0,t,{x}_{i}^{*}\right)=\left[{\Pi }_{i-1},{\Pi }_{i}\left[$  .
Not surprisingly, the Arratia flow is closely connected to the process $Z$  studied in the previous sections. We first consider its support ${S}_{t}$  . Since ${S}_{t}$  is a discrete set, we can identify it with a simple point process by placing a unit mass on each point of ${S}_{t}$  . For any ${y}_{1}\le {y}_{2}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  , by Proposition  4.1 ,
 $\begin{array}{c}\mathbb{P}\left\{{Z}_{t}\left({\cup }_{j=1}^{n}\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)=0\right\}=\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\gamma t}{Z}_{0}\left({\cup }_{j=1}^{n}\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}$ (5.2)
We thus get the following characterization of the avoidance function for ${S}_{t}$  .
 $\begin{array}{c}\mathbb{P}\left\{{S}_{t}\cap {\cup }_{j=1}^{n}\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]=\varnothing \right\}=\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\frac{2}{\gamma t}{Z}_{0}\left({\cup }_{j=1}^{n}\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}$ (5.3)
Consequently the distribution of ${S}_{t}$  is uniquely determined by ( 5.3 ); see Theorem 3.3 in [8.
5.3 ) suggests a connection between ${S}_{t}$  and the Arratia flow. Let ${M}_{t}\left(dy\right)$  be a random measure on $\mathbb{R}$  such that ${M}_{t}\left({\cup }_{j=1}^{n}\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)=\frac{2}{\gamma t}{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{Z}_{0}\left(\right]\phi \left(0,t,{y}_{2j-1}\right),\phi \left(0,t,{y}_{2j}\right)\right]\right),{y}_{1}\le {y}_{2}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}.$  Then ${S}_{t}$  can be identified with a Cox process with a finite random intensity measure ${M}_{t}$  . ( 5.2 ) also leads to a result on the occupation time for $Z$  . For any Borel set $B$  in $\mathbb{R}$  , ${\int }_{0}^{t}ds\mathbb{P}\left\{{Z}_{s}\left(B\right)=0\right\}={\int }_{0}^{t}ds\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{M}_{t}\left(B\right)\right\}\right].$  A particle representation for ${Z}_{t}$  is available by using the image of the Arratia flow as a skeleton.
Given $\left({x}_{i}^{*}\right)$  as in ( 5.1 ), let $\left(\dots ,{\xi }_{-1},{\xi }_{0},{\xi }_{1},\dots \right)$  be independent non-negative random variables such that $\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\xi }_{i}\right\}|\left({x}_{i}^{*}\right)\right]=exp\left\{-\frac{2\lambda {Z}_{0}\left({\phi }^{-1}\left(0,t,{x}_{i}^{*}\right)\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t}\right\}.$  Then
 $\begin{array}{c}{Z}_{t}=D{\sum }_{i=-\infty }^{\infty }{\xi }_{i}{\delta }_{{x}_{i}^{*}}.\end{array}$ (5.4)
To see this, define ${Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}:={\sum }_{i=-m{2}^{m}}^{m{2}^{m}}{\xi }_{i}^{\left(m\right)}\left(t\right){\delta }_{\phi \left(0,t,i/{2}^{m}\right)},$  where ${\left({\xi }_{i}^{\left(m\right)}\right)}_{i=-m{2}^{m}}^{m{2}^{m}}$  is a sequence of independent Feller's branching processes with initial values ${\left({Z}_{0}\left(\left[\left(i-1\right)/{2}^{m},i/{2}^{m}\left[\right)\right)}_{i=-m{2}^{m}}^{m{2}^{m}}$  , and in addition, $\left({\xi }_{i}^{\left(m\right)}\right)$  is independent of $\left\{\phi \left(s,t,x\right)\right\}$  .
For any ${a}_{j}\ge 0,j=1,\dots ,n$  , and ${y}_{1}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  , by the same argument as in the proof for Theorem  3.2 , we have
 $\begin{array}{cccccccccc}& {lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & ={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[{}^{m{2}^{m}}{\prod }_{i=-m{2}^{m}}exp\left\{-\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\left[\left(i-1\right)/{2}^{m},i/{2}^{m}\left[\right){\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(i/{2}^{m}\right)}{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(i/{2}^{m}\right)}\right\}\right]& & ={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{i=-m{2}^{m}}^{m{2}^{m}}\frac{2{Z}_{0}\left(\left[\left(i-1\right)/{2}^{m},i/{2}^{m}\left[\right){\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(i/{2}^{m}\right)}{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(i/{2}^{m}\right)}\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\frac{2{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{a}_{j}{Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}$
Therefore, ${Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\to D{Z}_{t}.$  Further, by the definition of $\left({x}_{i}^{*}\right)$  and the additive property for Feller's branching processes we obtain that ${Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}={\sum }_{i=-\infty }^{\infty }{\sum }_{{\Pi }_{i-1}\le j/{2}^{m}<{\Pi }_{i}}{\xi }_{j}^{\left(m\right)}\left(t\right){\delta }_{{x}_{i}^{*}}\to D{\sum }_{i=-\infty }^{\infty }{\xi }_{i}{\delta }_{{x}_{i}^{*}}.$  Putting these together gives ( 5.4 ). This interplay is remarkable. On one hand, $Z$  can be constructed using the Arratia flow; on the other hand, $Z$  tells us how an initial measure ${Z}_{0}$  is transported over time under both the Arratia flow and the branching.
The Laplace functional for ${Z}_{t}$  can also be expressed in terms of $\left({x}_{i}^{*}\right)$  and $\left({\Pi }_{i}\right)$  . Given any nonnegative bounded continuous function $f$  , for ${y}_{j}=j/{2}^{n}$  , Theorem  3.2 yields
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=-n{2}^{n}}^{n{2}^{n}}f\left({y}_{j}\right){Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{j-1},{y}_{j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\frac{2{\sum }_{j=-n{2}^{n}}^{n{2}^{n}}f\left({y}_{j}\right)1\left\{\right]\phi \left(0,t,{y}_{j-1}\right),\phi \left(0,t,{y}_{j}\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{2+\gamma t{\sum }_{j=-n{2}^{n}}^{n{2}^{n}}f\left({y}_{j}\right)1\left\{\right]\phi \left(0,t,{y}_{j-1}\right),\phi \left(0,t,{y}_{j}\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (5.5)
Again, let $m\to \infty$  . It follows that
 $\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }f\left(x\right){Z}_{t}\left(dx\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\frac{2\lambda {\sum }_{i=-\infty }^{\infty }f\left({\Pi }_{i}\right)1\left\{\right]{x}_{i}^{*},{x}_{i+1}^{*}\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}{2+\lambda \gamma t{\sum }_{i=-\infty }^{\infty }f\left({\Pi }_{i}\right)1\left\{\right]{x}_{i}^{*},{x}_{i+1}^{*}\right]\right\}\left(x\right)}\right\}\right].\end{array}$

6 A more general model

Evans observes that what is really at work in the proof for Theorem  3.2 is the additivity for the Feller's branching processes. He then suggested that we could use the square of Bessel processes (BESQ) to describe the evolution of masses. We are going to carry it out in this section.
For $x\ge 0$  and $\delta \ge 0$  the square of $\delta$  -dimensional Bessel process starting at $x$  , denoted by ${\text{BESQ}}^{\delta }\left(x\right)$  , is a non-negative valued process $\xi$  which solves the following stochastic differential equation ${\xi }_{t}=x+2{\int }_{0}^{t}\sqrt{{\xi }_{s}}d{B}_{s}+\delta t,$  where $B$  is a one-dimensional Brownian motion. The Laplace transform for $\xi$  is given by
 $\begin{array}{c}\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-\lambda {\xi }_{t}\right\}\right]=\frac{1}{\left(1+2\lambda t{\right)}^{\frac{\delta }{2}}}exp\left\{-\frac{\lambda x}{1+2\lambda t}\right\}.\end{array}$ (6.1)
Notice that the Feller's branching process is just a ${\text{BESQ}}^{0}$  . We refer to Chapter XI in [11for a more detailed introduction on the Bessel processes.
It is easy to see from ( 6.1 ) that ${\text{BESQ}}^{\delta }\left(x\right)$  is additive in both $\delta$  and $x$  ; i.e. if $\left\{{\xi }_{i},i=1,\dots ,m\right\}$  is a sequence of independent processes such that each ${\xi }_{i}$  is a ${\text{BESQ}}^{{\delta }_{i}}\left({x}_{i}\right)$  . Then ${\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}$  is a ${\text{BESQ}}^{{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\delta }_{i}}\left({\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{x}_{i}\right)$  .
Now we are going to modify the process $Z$  defined in Section 3 by letting the masses of the particles be governed by the BESQ processes. Since the dimension is an additional parameter for BESQ, we need to introduce another measure-valued process $\Delta$  to describe the evolution of the dimension.
As in Section 3, we first consider two systems of interacting particles. Given a finite measure ${Z}_{0}$  on $\mathbb{R}$  , for any $m$  , choose ${x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}$  to be i.i.d. random variables with a common distribution ${\overline{Z}}_{0}:={Z}_{0}/{Z}_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  . Let $\left({X}_{1},\dots ,{X}_{m}\right)$  be an $m$  -dimensional coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({x}_{1},\dots ,{x}_{m}\right)$  .
Given another finite measure ${\Delta }_{0}$  on ${\mathbb{R}}^{+}$  with a finite “mean” $\mu :={\int }_{0}^{\infty }\delta {\Delta }_{0}\left(d\delta \right)$  , let ${\delta }_{1},\dots ,{\delta }_{m}$  be i.i.d. random variables with a common distribution $\overline{\Delta }:={\Delta }_{0}/{\Delta }_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  . We further suppose that and $\left({X}_{i}\right)$  and $\left({\delta }_{i}\right)$  are independent.
Put $\overline{\delta }:={\Delta }_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  and $\overline{z}:={Z}_{0}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  . Let $\left({\xi }_{1},\dots ,{\xi }_{m}\right)$  be a collection of $m$  independent ${\text{BESQ}}^{{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }/m}\left(\overline{z}/m\right)$  processes. Then ${Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}:={\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right){\delta }_{{X}_{i}\left(t\right)}$  and ${\Delta }_{t}^{\left(m\right)}:=\frac{1}{m}{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }{\delta }_{{X}_{i}\left(t\right)}$  define two ${M}_{F}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  -valued processes.
Similar to Lemma  3.1 we can show that both $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  and $\left\{{\Delta }^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  are C-relatively compact in $D\left({M}_{F}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right)$  . They have unique weak limits by Theorem  6.1 , which we will prove shortly. Let $Z$  and $\Delta$  be the weak limits for $\left\{{Z}^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  and $\left\{{\Delta }^{\left(m\right)}\right\}$  . Intuitively, $\left\{\left({Z}_{0}\left(B\right),{\Delta }_{0}\left(B\right)\right):B\in \mathcal{ℬ}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)\right\}$  describes the initial mass-dimension distribution on $\mathbb{R}$  , and $\left\{\left({Z}_{t}\left(B\right),{\Delta }_{t}\left(B\right)\right):B\in \mathcal{ℬ}\left(\mathbb{R}\right),0\le t<\infty \right\}$  describes the simultaneous mass-dimension evolution for such a model, which we call a super square of Bessel process with spatial coalescing Brownian motion.
For any nonnegative constants ${\alpha }_{j},{\beta }_{j},j=1,\dots ,n$  and $t>0$  , put ${I}_{t}\left(x\right):={\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\alpha }_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right)$  and ${J}_{t}\left(x\right):={\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\beta }_{j}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left(x\right),$  where, as usual, $\left({Y}_{1},\dots ,{Y}_{2n}\right)$  is an $2n$  -dimensional coalescing Brownian motion starting at $\left({y}_{1},\dots ,{y}_{2n}\right)$  . The next result determines the joint distribution for $\left({Z}_{t}\left(B\right),{\Delta }_{t}\left(B\right)\right),B\in \mathcal{ℬ}\left(\mathbb{R}\right)$  .
Theorem 6.1. For any ${\alpha }_{j}\ge 0,{\beta }_{j}\ge 0,j=1,\dots ,n$  and any ${y}_{1}\le \dots \le {y}_{2n}$  , we have
 $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\alpha }_{j}{Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\beta }_{j}{\Delta }_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\overline{z}}ln\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)+\frac{{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}{1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}+\frac{\mu }{\overline{z}}{J}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (6.2)
• Proof. To prove ( 6.2 ), again, we first fix $\left({\delta }_{1},\dots ,{\delta }_{m}\right)$  and $\left({\xi }_{1},\dots ,{\xi }_{m}\right)$  . It follows that  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\alpha }_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\beta }_{j}{\Delta }_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}\left({\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\alpha }_{j}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)+{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}\frac{{\beta }_{j}{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }}{m}1\left\{\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right\}\left({X}_{i}\left(t\right)\right)\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}\left({\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\alpha }_{j}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right)1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)& & +{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}\frac{{\beta }_{j}{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }}{m}1\left\{\right]{Y}_{2j-1}\left(t\right),{Y}_{2j}\left(t\right)\right]\right\}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}{\xi }_{i}\left(t\right){I}_{t}\left({x}_{i}\right)-{\sum }_{i=1}^{m}\frac{{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }}{m}{J}_{t}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (6.3)
We then fix $\left({x}_{i}\right)$  and $\left({\delta }_{i}\right)$  , and take expectations with respect to $\left({\xi }_{1},\dots ,{\xi }_{m}\right)$  . By ( 6.1 ) the right hand side of ( 6.3 ) is equal to  $\begin{array}{c}\begin{array}{cccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[{}^{m}{\prod }_{i=1}{\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right)}^{-\frac{{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }}{2m}}exp\left\{-\frac{\overline{z}{I}_{t}\left({x}_{i}\right)}{m\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left({x}_{i}\right)\right)}-\frac{{\delta }_{i}\overline{\delta }{J}_{t}\left({x}_{i}\right)}{m}\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[{\left({\int }_{0}^{\infty }{\overline{Z}}_{0}\left(dx\right){\int }_{0}^{\infty }{\overline{\Delta }}_{0}\left(d\delta \right){\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)}^{-\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }}{2m}}exp\left\{-\frac{\overline{z}{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}{m\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)}-\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }{J}_{t}\left(x\right)}{m}\right\}\right)}^{m}\right].\end{array}\end{array}$ (6.4)
Let $m\to \infty$  in ( 6.4 ). We finally have  $\begin{array}{cccccccccccc}& \mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\alpha }_{j}{Z}_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\beta }_{j}{\Delta }_{t}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & ={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\alpha }_{j}{Z}_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)-{\sum }_{j=1}^{n}{\beta }_{j}{\Delta }_{t}^{\left(m\right)}\left(\right]{y}_{2j-1},{y}_{2j}\right]\right)\right\}\right]& & ={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[{\left\{{\int }_{\mathbb{R}×{\mathbb{R}}^{+}}{\overline{Z}}_{0}\left(dx\right){\overline{\Delta }}_{0}\left(d\delta \right)\left(1-\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }}{2m}ln\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)\right)\left(1-\frac{\overline{z}{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}{m\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)}-\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }{J}_{t}\left(x\right)}{m}\right)\right\}}^{m}\right]& & ={lim}_{m\to \infty }\mathbb{P}\left[{\left\{{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{\overline{Z}}_{0}\left(dx\right){\int }_{0}^{\infty }{\overline{\Delta }}_{0}\left(d\delta \right)\left(1-\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }}{2m}ln\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)-\frac{\overline{z}{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}{m\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)}-\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }{J}_{t}\left(x\right)}{m}\right)\right\}}^{m}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{\overline{Z}}_{0}\left(dx\right){\int }_{0}^{\infty }{\overline{\Delta }}_{0}\left(d\delta \right)\left(\frac{\delta \overline{\delta }}{2}ln\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)+\frac{\overline{z}{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}{1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}+\delta \overline{\delta }{J}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)\right\}\right]& & =\mathbb{P}\left[exp\left\{-{\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }{Z}_{0}\left(dx\right)\left(\frac{\mu }{2\overline{z}}ln\left(1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)+\frac{{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}{1+2t{I}_{t}\left(x\right)}+\frac{\mu }{\overline{z}}{J}_{t}\left(x\right)\right)\right\}\right].\end{array}$
Remark 6.2. Notice that $\Delta$  is just the process $Z$  in Theorem  3.2 with $\gamma =0$  .
The generalized model considered in this section will not die out for $\mu >0$  . Many of the properties in Section 3 and 4 can be discussed in a similar fashion. But we leave the details to the interested readers.
Acknowledgement: The author is grateful to Steven Evans for a suggestion that results in Section 5 of this paper. The author also thanks Carl M $\stackrel{¨}{\text{u}}$  ller for a helpful comment.
References

1. R. Arratia, Coalescing Brownian motions on the line, Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison 1979.
2. R. W. R. Darling, Isotropic stochastic flows: a survey, Diffusion Processes and Related Problems in Analysis (M. Pinsky and M. Wihstutz, eds.) 2 75–94. Birkh $\stackrel{¨}{\text{a}}$  user, Boston, 1992.
3. D. A. Dawson, Z. H. Li, H. Wang, Superprocesses with dependent spatial motion and general branching densities, Elect. J. Probab. 6 (2001) 25, 1–33.
4. D. A. Dawson, Z. H. Li, Construction of immigration superprocesses with dependent spatial motion from one–dimensional excursions, Probab. Theory Related Fields, 127 (1) (2003), 37–61.
5. D. A. Dawson, Z. H. Li, X. Zhou, Rescaled limit of a superprocess with dependent spatial motion, J. Theo. Probab. 17 (3) (2004), 673–692.
6. S. N. Ethier, T. G. Kurtz, Markov Processes: Characterization and Convergence, Wiley, New York, 1986.
7. J. Jacod, A.N. Shiryaev, Limit Theorems for Stochastic Processes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1987.
8. O. Kallenberg, Random Measures, Academic Press, New York, 1976.
9. Z. Ma, K. Xiang, Superprocesses of stochastic flows, Ann. Probab. 29 (1) (2001) 317–343.
10. E. Perkins, Dawson-Watanabe Superprocesses and Measure-valued Diffusions, Lectures on probability theory and statistics (Saint-Flour, 1999), 125–329, Lecture Notes in Math., 1781, Springer, Berlin, 2002.
11. D. Revuz, M. Yor, Continuous Martingales and Brownian Motion, Springer, Berlin, 1991.
12. G. Skoulakis, R. J. Adler, Superprocesses over a stochastic flow, Ann. Appl. Probab. 11 (2) (2002) 488–543.
13. F. Soucaliuc, B. Tóth, W. Werner, Reflection and coalescence between independent one-dimensional Brownian paths, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Probab. Statist. 36 (4) (2000) 509–545.
14. B. Tóth, W. Werner, The True self–repelling motion, Probab. Theory Related Fields, 111 (3) (1997) 375–452.
15. R. Tribe, The behavior of superprocesses near extinction, Ann. Probab. 20 (1) (1992) 286–311.
16. J. Xiong, X. Zhou, On the duality between coalescing Brownian motions, Canad. J. Math. 57 (1) (2005) 204–224.