1: %06.03.13

2: %This version is considered final on March 13. It goes to arxiv.

3: \documentclass{article}

4: %\documentclass[draft]{article}

5: \usepackage[leqno,intlimits]{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{amssymb}

7: \usepackage{amsthm}

8: %\usepackage{showkeys}

9: \usepackage{hyperref}

10: \allowdisplaybreaks[1]

11: 

12: \newtheorem{tm}{Theorem}[section]

13: \newtheorem{lm}[tm]{Lemma}

14: \newtheorem{cor}[tm]{Corollary}

15: 

16: 

17: \newcommand{\va}{a}  %%% temporary parameter

18: 

19: \newcommand*{\hop}{\bigskip\noindent}

20: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

21: \newcommand*{\Rb}{\mathbb R}

22: \newcommand*{\Zb}{\mathbb Z}

23: \newcommand*{\un}{\underline}

24: \newcommand*{\ba}{\begin{aligned}}

25: \newcommand*{\ea}{\end{aligned}}

26: \newcommand*{\be}{\begin{equation}}

27: \newcommand*{\ee}{\end{equation}}

28: \newcommand*{\vr}{\varrho}

29: \newcommand*{\vp}{\varphi}

30: \newcommand*{\ve}{\varepsilon}

31: \newcommand*{\om}{\omega}

32: \newcommand*{\al}{\alpha}

33: \newcommand*{\la}{\lambda}

34: \newcommand*{\pt}{\partial}

35: \newcommand*{\di}{\,\text{\rm d}}

36: \newcommand*{\les}{\lesssim}

37: \newcommand*{\Ac}{\mathcal A}

38: \newcommand*{\Wc}{\mathcal W}

39: \newcommand*{\Nc}{\mathcal N}

40: \newcommand*{\Ec}{\mathcal E}

41: \newcommand*{\Sc}{\mathcal S}

42: \newcommand*{\wt}{\widetilde}

43: \newcommand*{\wh}{\widehat}

44: \newcommand*{\Ev}{\mathbf E}

45: \newcommand*{\Pv}{\mathbf P}

46: \newcommand*{\Vv}{{\text{\bf Var}}}

47: \newcommand*{\Cov}{\text{\bf Cov}}

48: \newcommand*{\e}[1]{\text{\rm e}^{#1}}

49: \newcommand*{\fl}[1]{\left\lfloor{#1}\right\rfloor}

50: \newcommand*{\tfl}[1]{\lfloor{#1}\rfloor}

51: \newcommand*{\si}{\sigma}

52: \DeclareMathOperator\Expd{Exp}

53: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

54: \begin{document}

55: \title{Cube root fluctuations for the corner growth model

56: associated to the

57: exclusion process}

58: \author{M.\ Bal\'azs\thanks{University of Wisconsin-Madison\newline

59: M. Bal\'azs was partially supported by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund

60: (OTKA) grant TS49835 and by National Science Foundation Grant DMS-0503650.\newline

61: T.\ Sepp\"al\"ainen was partially supported by National Science Foundation

62: grant DMS-0402231.}, E. Cator\thanks{Delft University of Technology}

63:  and  T.\ Sepp\"al\"ainen$^*$}

64: \maketitle

65: \begin{abstract}

66: We study the last-passage growth model on the planar integer lattice

67:  with exponential weights.  With boundary conditions

68:  that represent the equilibrium exclusion process as seen

69: from a particle right after its jump

70: we prove that the variance of the last-passage time

71: in a characteristic direction

72: is of order $t^{2/3}$.  With more general boundary

73: conditions that include the rarefaction fan case

74: we show that the last-passage time fluctuations are

75: still  of order $t^{1/3}$, and also that

76: the transversal fluctuations of the maximal path

77: have order $t^{2/3}$.

78: We   adapt and then build on   a recent study

79: of Hammersley's process by Cator and Groeneboom, and also

80: utilize   the competition interface introduced by Ferrari,

81: Martin and Pimentel.

82:   The arguments are entirely probabilistic, and no

83: use is made of the combinatorics of Young tableaux or methods of

84: asymptotic analysis.

85: \end{abstract}

86: 

87: \noindent

88: {\bf Keywords:} Last-passage, simple exclusion, cube root asymptotics, competition interface, Burke's theorem, rarefaction fan

89: 

90: \hop

91: {\bf MSC:} 60K35, 82C43

92: 

93: \section{Introduction}

94: 

95: We construct a version of the corner growth model that corresponds

96: to an equilibrium exclusion process as seen by a typical particle

97: right after its jump,

98: and show that along a characteristic direction the variance of the

99: last-passage time is of order $t^{2/3}$.  This last-passage time

100: is the maximal sum of  exponential weights along up-right paths

101: in the first quadrant of the integer plane.

102: The interior weights have rate 1, while the boundary weights

103: on the axes have rates

104: $1-\vr$ and $\vr$ where $0<\vr<1$ is the particle density of the

105: exclusion process.

106: By comparison to this equilibrium setting, we also show

107: fluctuation results with

108:  similar scaling in the case of the rarefaction fan.

109: 

110: The proof is based on a recent work of Cator and Groeneboom

111: \cite{cuberoot} where corresponding results are proved for

112: the planar-increasing-path version of

113: Ham\-mers\-ley's process.  A key part of that proof is an identity

114: that relates the variance of the last-passage time to the

115: point where the maximal path exits the axes. This exit point itself

116: is related to a second-class particle via a time reversal.

117: The idea that the current and  the second-class particle

118: should be connected goes  back to a paper of Ferrari and Fontes

119: \cite{se} on the diffusive fluctuations

120: of the current away from the characteristic.  However, despite this

121: surprising congruence of ideas, article  \cite{cuberoot} and our

122: work have  no technical relation to the

123: Ferrari-Fontes work.

124: 

125: The first task of the present paper is to find the

126:  connection between the variance of the last-passage time and

127: the  exit point, in the equilibrium corner growth model.  The relation

128: turns out not as straightforward as for Hammersley's process,

129: for we also need to include the amount of weight collected on

130: the axes.  However, once this difference is understood, the arguments

131: proceed quite similarly to those in  \cite{cuberoot}.

132: 

133: The notion of competition interface recently introduced

134: by Ferrari, Martin and Pimentel \cite{fermarpim, compint} now appears as

135: the representative of a second-class particle, and as the time

136: reversal of the maximal path.  As a by-product of the proof we

137: establish that the transversal fluctuations of the competition

138: interface are of the order

139: $t^{2/3}$ in the equilibrium setting.

140: 

141: In the last section we take full advantage of our

142: probabilistic approach, and show that for initial conditions obtained

143: by decreasing the equilibrium  weights on the axes

144: in an {\sl arbitrary} way,

145:  the fluctuations

146: of the last-passage time are still of order $t^{1/3}$.

147: This includes the situation known as the {\sl rarefaction fan}.

148: We are also able

149: to show that in this case the transversal fluctuations of the longest

150: path are of order $t^{2/3}$. In this more general setting

151: there is no direct connection between a maximal path and a competition

152: interface (or trajectory of a second class particle).

153: 

154: 

155: Our results for the competition interface, and

156: our fluctuation results  under the

157: more general boundary conditions are new.

158: The variance bound for the equilibrium last-passage time

159: is also strictly speaking new. However,

160:  the corresponding

161: distributional limit has been obtained by Ferrari and Spohn

162: \cite{ferspohn} with a  proof based on the RSK machinery.

163: But they lack a suitable tightness property that would give them

164:  also control of the variance. [Note that

165: Ferrari and Spohn start by describing a different set of

166: equilibrium boundary conditions than the ones we consider, but later

167: in their paper they cover also the kind we  define in

168: \eqref{eq:bondis} below.]

169: The methods of our paper can  also be applied to

170: geometrically distributed weights, with the same outcomes.

171: 

172: %The distributional and variance

173: %limits of the last-passage time in the equilibrium corner growth model

174: % have already % been derived by Ferrari and Spohn \cite{ferspohn}.

175: %Although they start with slightly different initial conditions,

176: %their work also covers our boundary conditions for the

177: %equilibrium setting.

178: 

179: In addition to the results themselves,

180: our main  motivation  is to investigate

181:  new methods to attack the last-passage model, methods

182: that do not rely on the RSK correspondence of Young tableaux.

183: The reason for such a pursuit is that the precise counting

184: techniques of Young tableaux appear to work only for geometrically

185: distributed weights, from which one can then take a limit

186: to  obtain the case of  exponential weights. New techniques are needed

187: to go beyond the geometric and exponential cases,

188: although we are not yet in a position to undertake such an advance.

189: 

190: %%In the present paper we work directly with

191: %%exponential weights and obtain results for specific boundary

192: %conditions which are relevant to the equilibrium simple exclusion

193: %process, and then for more general rarefaction boundary conditions

194: %as well.

195: 

196: For the  class of totally asymmetric stochastic interacting

197: systems for which the last-passage approach  works, this point of view

198:  has been extremely valuable.  In addition to the papers already

199: mentioned above, we list

200:  Sepp\"al\"ainen \cite{timogrowth, hkl}, Johansson \cite{1/3}, and

201:  Pr\"ahofer and Spohn  \cite{spohn}.

202: %%% Ferrari, Martin and Pimentel \cite{fermarpim}, \cite{compint}.

203: %Among these papers,

204: %\cite{ferspohn} and \cite{spohn} have applied the last-passage approach

205: % in an equilibrium situation.

206: 

207: {\bf Organization of the paper.}  The main results are discussed

208: in Section \ref{sc:recults}. Section \ref{sc:part}

209: describes the relationship of the last-passage model to

210: particle and deposition models, and can be skipped without loss

211: of continuity.

212: The remainder of the paper is for the proofs.  Section \ref{sec:prel}

213: covers some preliminary matters. This includes a strong form

214: of Burke's theorem for the last-passage times (Lemma \ref{lm:NE}).

215: Upper and lower bounds for the equilibrium results are

216: covered in Sections \ref{sc:ub} and \ref{sc:lb}.

217: Lastly, fluctuations under more

218: general boundary conditions are studied in Section \ref{sc:gen-bd}.

219: 

220: {\bf Notation.}  $\Zb_+=\{0,1,2,\dotsc\}$ denotes the set

221: of nonnegative integers.  The integer part of a real number

222: is $\tfl{x}=\max\{ n\in\Zb: n\leq x\}$.

223: $C$ denotes constants whose precise value is immaterial and that do not depend

224: on the parameter (typically $t$) that grows.

225: $X\sim \Expd(\vr)$ means that $X$ has the exponential distribution with rate

226: $\vr$, in other words has density  $f(x)=\vr e^{-\vr x}$ on $\Rb_+$.

227:   For clarity,

228: subscripts can be replaced

229: by arguments in parentheses, as for example in $G_{ij}=G(i,j)$.

230: 

231: \section{Results}

232: \label{sc:recults}

233: We start by describing the corner growth model with boundaries

234: that correspond to a special view of the equilibrium.

235: Section \ref{sc:part} and Lemma \ref{lm:NE} justify the term equilibrium in this context. Our results for more general

236:  boundary conditions are in Section \ref{sc:rareres}.

237: 

238: \subsection{Equilibrium results}

239: 

240:   We are given an array

241: $\{\om_{ij}\}_{i,j\in\Zb_+}$ of nonnegative real numbers.

242: We will always have $\om_{00}=0$.

243: The values $\om_{ij}$ with either $i=0$ or $j=0$ are

244: the boundary values, while $\{\om_{ij}\}_{i,j\geq 1}$ are

245: the interior values.

246: 

247:  Figure \ref{fig:iniri} depicts this

248: initial set-up on the first quadrant $\Zb_+^2$ of the integer plane.

249: A $\star$ marks $(0,\,0)$,

250: $\triangledown$'s mark positions $(i,\,0)$, $i\geq1$, $\vartriangle$'s

251: positions  $(0,\,j)$, $j\geq1$, and interior points $(i,\,j)$, $i,j\geq1$

252: are marked  with $\circ$'s.  The coordinates of a few

253: points around $(5,\,2)$ have been labeled.

254: 

255: For a point $(i,\,j)\in\Zb_+^2$, let $\Pi_{ij}$

256: be the set of directed paths

257: \be

258: \pi=\{(0,\,0)=(p_0,\,q_0)\to(p_1,\,q_1)\to\dots\to(p_{i+j},\,q_{i+j})=(i,\,j)\}

259: \label{eq:pi-1} \ee

260: with up-right steps

261: \be

262: (p_{l+1},\,q_{l+1})-(p_l,\,q_l)= (1,0) \ \text{ or } \ (0,1)

263: \label{eq:allow}

264: \ee

265: along the coordinate directions.

266: Define the \emph{last passage time} of the point $(i,\,j)$ as

267: \[

268: G_{ij}=\max_{\pi\in\Pi_{ij}}\sum_{(p,q)\in\pi}\om_{pq}.

269: \]

270:  $G$ satisfies the recurrence

271: \be

272: G_{ij}=(G_{\{i-1\}j}\lor G_{i\{j-1\}})+\om_{ij}\qquad(i,\,j\geq0)\label{eq:grec}

273: \ee

274: (with formally assuming $G_{\{-1\}j}=G_{i\{-1\}}=0$).

275: A common interpretation is that this models a  growing cluster

276: on the

277: first quadrant that starts from a seed at the origin

278: (bounded by the thickset line in Figure \ref{fig:iniri}).

279: The value  $\om_{ij}$

280: is the time it takes to occupy point $(i,j)$  after its neighbors

281: to the left and below have become occupied, with the interpretation

282: that a boundary point needs only one occupied neighbor.

283: Then $G_{ij}$ is the time when $(i,j)$ becomes occupied, or

284:  joins the growing cluster.

285: The occupied region at time  $t\geq0$ is the set

286: \be

287: \Ac(t)=\{(i,j)\in\Zb_+^2\,:\, G_{ij}\leq t\}.

288: \label{eq:def-Ac}

289: \ee

290: 

291: Figure \ref{fig:laterri} shows a possible later situation.

292: Occupied points are denoted by solidly colored symbols, the

293: occupied cluster is bounded by the thickset line, and the

294: arrows mark an admissible path $\pi$ from $(0,0)$ to $(5,2)$.

295: %%If $G_{4,2}>G_{5,1}$ then this path is actually the maximal path to $(5,2)$.

296: If $G_{5,2}$ is the smallest among

297: $G_{0,5}$, $G_{1,4}$, $G_{5,2}$ and $G_{6,0}$, then $(5,2)$

298: is the next point added to the cluster, as suggested by the

299: dashed lines around the $(5,2)$ square.

300: 

301: To create a model of random evolution, we pick  a real number

302: $0<\vr<1$ and  take  the variables $\{\om_{ij}\}$  mutually independent

303: with the following marginal distributions:

304: \be

305: \ba

306: \om_{00}&=0,\qquad&&\text{where the }\star\text{ is},\\

307: \om_{i0}&\sim\Expd(1-\vr),\ i\geq1,\qquad&&\text{where the }\triangledown\text{'s are},\\

308: \om_{0j}&\sim\Expd(\vr),\ j\geq1,\qquad&&\text{where the }\vartriangle\text{'s are},\\

309: \om_{ij}&\sim\Expd(1),\ i,j\geq1,\qquad&&\text{where the }\circ\text{'s are}.

310: \ea\label{eq:bondis}

311: \ee

312: 

313: %%%%%%%%%%%%1 start

314: \begin{figure}[ht]

315: \begin{center}

316: \begin{picture}(220,140)(5,20)

317: \put(40,30){\vector(1,0){150}}

318: \put(50,20){\vector(0,1){130}}

319: \multiput(50,40)(0,20){6}{\line(1,0){140}}

320: \multiput(60,30)(20,0){7}{\line(0,1){120}}

321: \put(47,27){\large$\star$}

322: \multiput(66,26)(20,0){6}{\large$\triangledown$}

323: \multiput(45.6,47)(0,20){5}{\large$\vartriangle$}

324: \multiput(67,47)(0,20){5}{

325: \multiput(0,0)(20,0){6}{\large$\circ$}}

326: \put(32,23){\tiny$(0,0)$}

327: \put(185,23){\tiny$i$}

328: \put(43,145){\tiny$j$}

329: \put(69,21){\tiny$1$}

330: \put(89,21){\tiny$2$}

331: \put(109,21){\tiny$3$}

332: \put(129,21){\tiny$4$}

333: \put(149,21){\tiny$5$}

334: \put(169,21){\tiny$6$}

335: \put(42,47){\tiny$1$}

336: \put(42,67){\tiny$2$}

337: \put(42,87){\tiny$3$}

338: \put(42,107){\tiny$4$}

339: \put(42,127){\tiny$5$}

340: \put(142,63){\tiny$(5,2)$}

341: \put(142,43){\tiny$(5,1)$}

342: \put(142,83){\tiny$(5,3)$}

343: \put(122,63){\tiny$(4,2)$}

344: \put(162,63){\tiny$(6,2)$}

345: {\linethickness{2pt}

346: \put(50,40){\line(1,0){10}}

347: \put(60,30){\line(0,1){10}}

348: }

349: \end{picture}

350: \end{center}

351: \caption{The initial situation}\label{fig:iniri}

352: \end{figure}%

353: 

354: 

355: 

356: \begin{figure}[ht]

357: \begin{center}

358: \begin{picture}(220,140)(5,20)

359: \put(40,30){\vector(1,0){150}}

360: \put(50,20){\vector(0,1){130}}

361: \multiput(50,40)(0,20){6}{\line(1,0){140}}

362: \multiput(60,30)(20,0){7}{\line(0,1){120}}

363: \put(47,27){\large$\star$}

364: \multiput(66,26)(20,0){5}{\large$\blacktriangledown$}

365: \put(166,26){\large$\triangledown$}

366: \multiput(45.6,47)(0,20){4}{\large$\blacktriangle$}

367: \put(45.6,127){\large$\vartriangle$}

368: \multiput(67,47)(0,20){3}{

369: \multiput(0,0)(20,0){4}{\large$\bullet$}}

370: \put(147,47){\large$\bullet$}

371: \multiput(67,107)(0,20){2}{

372: \multiput(0,0)(20,0){6}{\large$\circ$}}

373: \multiput(147,67)(0,20){2}{\large$\circ$}

374: \multiput(167,47)(0,20){3}{\large$\circ$}

375: \put(32,23){\tiny$(0,0)$}

376: \put(185,23){\tiny$i$}

377: \put(43,145){\tiny$j$}

378: \put(69,21){\tiny$1$}

379: \put(89,21){\tiny$2$}

380: \put(109,21){\tiny$3$}

381: \put(129,21){\tiny$4$}

382: \put(149,21){\tiny$5$}

383: \put(169,21){\tiny$6$}

384: \put(42,47){\tiny$1$}

385: \put(42,67){\tiny$2$}

386: \put(42,87){\tiny$3$}

387: \put(42,107){\tiny$4$}

388: \put(42,127){\tiny$5$}

389: \put(142,63){\tiny$(5,2)$}

390: \put(142,43){\tiny$(5,1)$}

391: \put(142,83){\tiny$(5,3)$}

392: \put(122,63){\tiny$(4,2)$}

393: \put(162,63){\tiny$(6,2)$}

394: \multiput(55,33)(60,37){2}{

395: \multiput(0,0)(20,0){2}{\vector(1,0){11}}}

396: \multiput(90,35)(20,20){2}{\vector(0,1){10}}

397: \put(95,50){\vector(1,0){11}}

398: {\linethickness{2pt}

399: \put(50,120){\line(1,0){10}}

400: \put(60,100){\line(0,1){20}}

401: \put(60,100){\line(1,0){80}}

402: \put(140,60){\line(0,1){40}}

403: \put(140,60){\line(1,0){20}}

404: \put(160,30){\line(0,1){30}}

405: \multiput(141,80)(4,0){5}{\line(1,0){2}}

406: \multiput(160,61)(0,4){5}{\line(0,1){2}}

407: }

408: \end{picture}

409: \end{center}

410: \caption{A possible  later situation}\label{fig:laterri}

411: \end{figure}%

412: 

413: %%%%%%%1 end of figure

414: 

415: Ferrari, Pr\"ahofer and Spohn \cite{ferspohn}, \cite{spohn} consider the Bernoulli-equilibrium of simple exclusion, which corresponds to a slightly more complicated boundary distribution than the one described above. However, Ferrari and Spohn \cite{ferspohn} early on turn to the distribution described by \eqref{eq:bondis}, as it is more natural for last-passage. We will greatly exploit the simplicity of \eqref{eq:bondis} in Section \ref{sec:prel}. In fact, \eqref{eq:bondis} is also connected with the stationary exclusion process of particle density $\vr$. To see this point, we need to look at a particle of simple exclusion in a specific manner that we explain below in Section \ref{sec:tasep}.

416: 

417: Once the parameter $\vr$ has been picked we denote the last-passage

418: time of point $(m,n)$ by $G^\vr_{mn}$.

419: In order to see interesting behavior we follow

420: the last-passage time  along the  ray defined by

421: \be

422: (m(t),n(t))=(\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t}, \tfl{\vr^2t})

423: \label{eq:char-mn}

424: \ee

425:  as $t\to\infty$.  In Section \ref{sec:char}   we give a

426: heuristic justification for this choice. It represents the

427: characteristic speed of the macroscopic equation of the system.   Let us

428: abbreviate

429: \[

430: G^\vr(t)=G^\vr\bigl(\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t}, \tfl{\vr^2t} \bigr).

431: \]

432: Once we have proved that all horizontal and vertical increments

433: of $G$-values are distributed exponentially like the boundary increments,

434:  we see that

435: \[ \Ev(G^\vr(t))=\frac{\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{1-\vr}+\frac{\tfl{\vr^2t}}{\vr}.

436: \]

437: The first result is the order of the variance.

438: 

439: \begin{tm}\label{tm:G-var-1}

440: With $0<\vr<1$

441: and  independent $\{\om_{ij}\}$ distributed as in {\rm \eqref{eq:bondis}},

442: \[

443: 0<\liminf_{t\to\infty} \frac{\Vv(G^\vr(t))}{t^{2/3}} \leq

444: \limsup_{t\to\infty} \frac{\Vv(G^\vr(t))}{t^{2/3}} <\infty.

445: \]

446: \end{tm}

447: 

448: For given $(m,n)$  there is almost

449: surely a unique path $\wh\pi$ that maximizes the

450: passage time to $(m,n)$,

451: due to the continuity of the distribution of

452: $\{\om_{ij}\}$.

453: The {\sl exit point} of $\wh\pi$ is the last boundary point

454: on the path. If $(p_l,q_l)$ is the exit point for the path

455: in  \eqref{eq:pi-1}, then either $p_0=p_1=\dotsm=p_l=0$

456: or  $q_0=q_1=\dotsm=q_l=0$, and $p_k,q_k\geq 1$ for all $k>l$.

457: To distinguish between exits via the $i$- and $j$-axis, we introduce

458: a non-zero integer-valued random variable $Z$ such that if

459: $Z>0$ then the exit point is $(p_{\lvert{Z}\rvert},q_{\lvert{Z}\rvert})=(Z,0)$,

460: while  if

461: $Z<0$ then the exit point is $(p_{\lvert{Z}\rvert},q_{\lvert{Z}\rvert})

462: =(0,-Z)$.  For the sake of convenience we abuse language and call

463: the variable $Z$ also the ``exit point.''

464:  $Z^\vr(t)$ denotes the exit point of the maximal path

465: to the point $(m(t),n(t))$ in \eqref{eq:char-mn}

466:  with

467: boundary condition parameter $\vr$.

468: Transposition $\om_{ij}\mapsto\om_{ji}$ of the array shows

469: that $Z^\vr(t)$ and $-Z^{1-\vr}(t)$ are equal in distribution.

470: Along the way to Theorem \ref{tm:G-var-1} we establish

471: that $Z^\vr(t)$ fluctuates on the scale $t^{2/3}$.

472: 

473: \begin{tm} Given $0<\vr<1$ and independent $\{\om_{ij}\}$ distributed

474:  as in {\rm \eqref{eq:bondis}}.

475: 

476: {\rm (a)} For $t_0>0$

477: there exists a finite constant  $C=C(t_0, \vr)$

478: such that, for all $a>0$ and $t\geq t_0$,

479: \[

480: \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t)\geq at^{2/3}\} \leq C a^{-3}.

481: \]

482: 

483: {\rm (b)} Given $\ve>0$, we can choose a

484:  $\delta>0$ small enough so that for all large enough  $t$

485: \[

486: \Pv\{1\leq  Z^\vr(t)\leq \delta t^{2/3}\}\leq \ve.

487: \]

488: \label{tm:Z-1}

489: \end{tm}

490: 

491: \hop

492: {\bf Competition interface.}

493: In \cite{fermarpim, compint} Ferrari, Martin and Pimentel introduced the {\sl competition

494: interface} in the last-passage picture. This is a path

495: $k\mapsto \vp_k\in\Zb_+^2$ ($k\in\Zb_+$),

496: defined as a function of $\{G_{ij}\}$:  first $\vp_0=(0,0)$,

497: and then for $k\geq 0$

498: \be

499: \vp_{k+1}= \begin{cases}

500: \vp_k+(1,0) &\text{if $G(\vp_k+(1,0))<G(\vp_k+(0,1))$,}\\

501: \vp_k+(0,1) &\text{if $G(\vp_k+(1,0))>G(\vp_k+(0,1))$.}

502: \end{cases}\label{eq:def-vphi}

503: \ee

504: In other words, $\vp$ takes up-right steps, always choosing

505: the smaller of the two possible $G$-values.

506: 

507: The term ``competition interface'' is justified by the following picture.

508: Instead of having the unit squares centered at the integer points

509: as in Figure \ref{fig:iniri},  draw the squares so that

510: their corners coincide with integer points.

511: Label the  squares  by their northeast

512: corners, so that  the square

513: $(i-1,i]\times(j-1,j]$ is labeled  the

514: $(i,j)$-square. Regard  the last-passage time $G_{ij}$

515: as the time when the $(i,j)$-square becomes occupied.  Color the square $(0,0)$

516: white. Every other square gets either a red or a blue color:

517:  squares   to

518: the left and above the path $\vp$ are colored red, and squares   to

519: the right and below  $\vp$ blue.  Then the red squares are those whose

520: maximal path $\wh\pi$ passes through $(0,1)$, while the blue squares are

521:  those whose

522: maximal path $\wh\pi$ passes through $(1,0)$.  These can be regarded as

523: two competing ``infections'' on the $(i,j)$-plane, and $\vp$ is the

524: interface between them.

525: 

526: The competition interface represents the evolution of a second-class

527: particle, and macroscopically it follows the characteristics.

528: This was one of the main points for \cite{compint}.  In the

529: present setting the competition interface

530:  is the time reversal

531: of the maximal path $\wh\pi$, as we explain more precisely

532: in Section \ref{sec:prel}  below. This

533: connection allows us to establish the order of the transversal

534: fluctuations of the competition interface in the equilibrium setting.

535: %, which we record in the next theorem.

536: To put this in precise notation, we introduce

537: \be

538: v(n)=\inf\{i\,:\,(i,n)=\vp_k\text{ for some }k\geq 0\}

539: \label{eq:def-vn}

540: \ee

541: and

542: \[

543: w(m)=\inf\{j\,:\,(m,j)=\vp_k\text{ for some }k\geq 0\}

544: \]

545: with the usual convention  $\inf\emptyset=\infty$. In other words,

546: $(v(n),n)$ is the leftmost point of the competition interface on

547: the horizontal line $j=n$, while $(m,w(m))$ is the lowest such

548: point on the vertical line $i=m$.  They are connected by the

549: implication

550: \be

551: v(n)\geq m\ \Longrightarrow \ w(m)<n

552: \label{eq:v-w-ineq}\ee

553: as can be seen from a picture.

554: Transposition $\om_{ij}\mapsto\om_{ji}$

555: of the $\om$-array interchanges $v$ and $w$.

556: 

557: Given $m$ and $n$,

558: %write temporarily  $\vp_k=(i_k,j_k)$

559: %in terms of coordinates and let

560: %\[

561: %N(t)=\inf\{ k: \,\text{$i_k=\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t}$ or $j_k=\tfl{\vr^2t}$} \}

562: %\]

563: %so that $\vp_{N(t)}$ is the point where the competition interface

564: %first hits either the east  or the north boundary of the  rectangle

565: %$\{0,\dotsc,\tfl{(1-\vr)^2}\}\times \{0,\dotsc,\tfl{\vr^2t}\}$.

566: let

567: \be

568: Z^{*\vr}=[m-v(n)]^+-[n-w(m)]^+\label{eq:zstar}

569: %\zeta^\vr(t)= \bigl( \tfl{(1-\vr)^2t}-i_{N(t)}\bigr)

570: %+ \bigl( \tfl{\vr^2t}-j_{N(t)}\bigr)

571: \ee

572: denote the signed distance from the point $(m,\,n)$

573: %northeast corner \eqref{eq:char-mn}

574: to the point where $\vp_k$ first hits either of the lines $j=n$ ($Z^{*\vr}>0$) or $i=m$ ($Z^{*\vr}<0$). Precisely one of the two terms

575:  contributes to the difference.

576: %$\vp_{N(t)}$.

577: When we let $m=m(t)$ and $n=n(t)$ according to \eqref{eq:char-mn}, we have the $t$-dependent version $Z^{*\vr}(t)$.

578: Time reversal will show that in distribution

579: $Z^{*\vr}(t)$ is equal to $Z^\vr(t)$. (The notation $Z^*$ is used in anticipation of this time reversal connection.) Consequently

580: \begin{cor}

581: Theorem \ref{tm:Z-1} is true word for word when $Z^\vr(t)$ is replaced by $Z^{*\vr}(t)$.

582: \end{cor}

583: %is result:

584: %

585: %\begin{tm} Given $0<\vr<1$ and independent $\{\om_{ij}\}$ distributed

586: % as in {\rm \eqref{eq:bondis}}.

587: %

588: %{\rm (a)} Given $t_0>0$

589: %there exists a finite constant  $C=C(t_0, \vr)$

590: %such that, for all $a>0$ and $t\geq t_0$,

591: %\[

592: %\Pv\{ \zeta^\vr(t)\geq at^{2/3}\} \leq C_4 a^{-3}.

593: %\]

594: %

595: %{\rm (b)} Given $\ve>0$, we can choose a

596: % $\delta>0$ small enough so that for all large enough  $t$

597: %\[

598: %\Pv\{\zeta^\vr(t)\leq \delta t^{2/3}\}\leq \ve.

599: %\]

600: %\label{tm:compint-1}

601: %\end{tm}

602: 

603: 

604: %It would be of great interest to study the corner growth model

605: %with different distributions for the $\om_{ij}$'s.

606: %However, except for results about behavior close to the

607: %axes \cite{},  the only rigorous results exist for

608: %exponential and geometric distributions.

609: 

610: \subsection{Results for the rarefaction fan}\label{sc:rareres}

611: 

612: We now partially generalize the previous results to

613: arbitrary boundary conditions that are bounded by

614: the equilibrium boundary conditions of \eqref{eq:bondis}.

615: Let  $\{\om_{ij}\}$ be distributed  as in \eqref{eq:bondis}.

616: Let  $\{\hat{\om}_{ij}\}$ be another array

617: defined on the same probability space

618:  such that $\hat{\om}_{00}=0$,

619:  $\hat{\om}_{ij}=\om_{ij}$ for $i,j \geq 1$, and

620: \be

621: \hat{\om}_{i0}\leq \om_{i0} \quad\text{and}\quad \hat{\om}_{0j}\leq

622: \om_{0j} \quad \forall\ i,j\geq 1.\label{eq:rareom}

623: \ee

624: In particular, $\hat{\om}_{i0}=\hat{\om}_{0j}=0$ is admissible here.

625: Section \ref{sc:rarepart} below explains how

626: these  boundary conditions can represent the so-called

627:  rarefaction fan situation of simple exclusion.

628: 

629: Let  $\hat{G}(t)$ denote the weight of the maximal path to $(m,n)$ of

630: \eqref{eq:char-mn}, using the $\{\hat{\om}_{ij}\}$ array.

631: \begin{tm}\label{tm:rare}

632: Fix $0<\al <1$. There exists a

633: constant $C=C(\al, \vr)$ such that for all $t\ge1$ and $a>0$,

634: \[

635: \Pv \{ |\hat{G}(t)-t| > at^{1/3}\} \leq Ca^{-3\al/2}.

636: \]

637: \end{tm}

638: Define also $\hat{Z}_l(t)$ as the $i$-coordinate of the right-most point on the horizontal line $j=l$ of the right-most maximal path to $(m,n)$, and $\hat{Y}_l(t)$ as the $i$-coordinate of the left-most point on the horizontal line $j=l$ of the left-most maximal path to $(m,n)$. (In this general setting we no longer necessarily have a unique maximizing path because we have not ruled out a dependence of $\{\hat{\om}_{i0},\hat{\om}_{0j}\}$ on $\{\hat{\om}_{ij}\}_{i,j \geq 1}$.)

639: \begin{tm}\label{tm:raretrans}

640: For all $0<\al<1$ there exists $C=C(\al,\,\vr)$, such that for all $a>0$, $s\le t$ with $t\ge1$ and $(k,l)=(\fl{(1-\vr)^2s},\fl{\vr^2s})$,

641: \[

642: \Pv\{\hat{Z}_l(t)\geq k+at^{2/3}\}\leq Ca^{-3\al},\quad\text{and}\quad\Pv\{\hat{Y}_l(t)\le k-at^{2/3}\}\leq Ca^{-3\al}.

643: \]

644: \end{tm}

645: 

646: \section{Particle systems and queues}\label{sc:part}

647: 

648: The proofs in our paper will only use the last-passage description of the model. However, we would like to point out several other pictures one can attach to the last-passage

649: model.  An immediate one is the

650:  totally asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP).

651:   The boundary conditions \eqref{eq:bondis}  of the last-passage

652: model   correspond to  TASEP  in  equilibrium,

653: as seen by a ``typical'' particle right after its jump.

654: We also briefly discuss queues, and an augmentation of the last-passage

655: picture that describes a deposition model with column growth,

656: as in \cite{fluct}.

657: 

658: %\hop

659: \subsection{The totally asymmetric simple exclusion process}

660: \label{sec:tasep}

661: This process

662: describes particles that jump unit steps  to the right

663:  on the integer lattice $\Zb$,  subject

664: to the exclusion rule that permits at most one particle per site.

665: The state of the process is a $\{0,1\}$-valued

666: sequence

667: $\wt{\un\eta}=\{\wt\eta_x\}_{x\in\Zb}$,

668: with the interpretation that  $\wt\eta_x=1$ means that site

669: $x$ is occupied by a particle, and

670:  $\wt\eta_x=0$  that $x$ is vacant.

671: The dynamics of the process are such that each $(1,0)$ pair

672: in the state

673: becomes a $(0,1)$ pair at rate 1, independently of the rest

674: of the state. In other words, each particle jumps to a vacant

675: site on its  right at rate 1, independently of other particles.

676:  The extreme points of the set of spatially

677:  translation-invariant equilibrium   distributions

678:  of this

679: process are the Bernoulli($\vr$) distributions $\nu^\vr$ indexed

680: by particle density  $0\leq\vr\leq1$.  Under $\nu^\vr$ the

681: occupation variables $\{\wt\eta_x\}$ are i.i.d.\ with

682: mean $\Ev^{\vr}(\wt\eta_x)=\vr$.

683: 

684: 

685: 

686: The Palm distribution of a particle system describes the equilibrium

687: distribution as seen from a ``typical'' particle. For a function $f$ of

688: $\wt{\un\eta}$, the Palm-expectation is

689: \[

690: \wh\Ev^\vr(f(\wt{\un\eta}))=\frac{\Ev^\vr(f(\wt{\un\eta})\cdot\wt\eta_0)}

691: {\Ev^\vr(\wt\eta_0)}

692: \]

693: in terms of the equilibrium expectation, see e.g.\ Port and Stone

694: \cite{posto}. Due to $\wt\eta_x\in\{0,\,1\}$,  for TASEP the Palm distribution is

695: the original Bernoulli($\vr$)-equilibrium conditioned on $\wt\eta_0=1$.

696: 

697: \begin{tm}[Burke]

698: Let $\wt{\un\eta}$ be a totally asymmetric simple exclusion process started from

699: the Palm distribution (i.e.\ a particle at the origin, Bernoulli measure elsewhere).

700: Then the position of the particle started at the origin is marginally a Poisson

701: process with jump rate $1-\vr$.

702: \end{tm}

703: The theorem follows from considering the inter-particle distances as M/M/1 queues.

704: Each of these distances is geometrically distributed, which is the stationary

705: distribution for the corresponding queue. Departure processes from these queues,

706: which correspond to TASEP particle jumps, are marginally Poisson due to Burke's

707: Theorem for queues, see e.g.\ Br\'emaud \cite{bremaud} for details. The Palm

708: distribution is important in this argument, as selecting a ``typical''

709: TASEP-particle assures that the inter-particle distances (or the lengths of the

710: queues) are geometrically distributed. For instance, the first particle to the

711: left of the origin in an ordinary Bernoulli equilibrium will \emph{not} see a

712: geometric distance to the next particle on its right.

713: 

714: Shortly we will explain how the boundary conditions

715: \eqref{eq:bondis} correspond to

716:  TASEP

717: started from Bernoulli($\vr$) measure, \emph{conditioned on $\wt\eta_0(0)=0$

718: and\linebreak [4]$\wt\eta_1(0)=1$}, i.e.\ a hole at the origin and a particle at site one

719: initially.  It will be convenient to give all particles and holes labels

720: that they retain as they jump (particles to the right, holes to the

721: left).

722: The particle initially at site one is labeled $P_0$, and the hole

723: initially at the origin is  labeled $H_0$. After this, all particles

724: are labeled with integers \emph{from right to left}, and all holes

725: \emph{from

726: left to right}. The position of particle $P_j$ at time $t$ is $P_j(t)$,

727: and the position of hole $H_i$  at time $t$ is $H_i(t)$.

728: Thus initially

729: \begin{align*}

730:   \dotsm < P_{3}(0)< P_{2}(0)&<P_{1}(0) < H_0(0)=0\\

731: & <1=P_0(0)

732: < H_1(0) < H_2(0)< H_3(0) <\dotsm

733: \end{align*}

734:   Since particles never

735: jump over each other, $P_{j+1}(t)<P_j(t)$ holds  at all times $t\geq 0$,

736: and by the same  token  also

737: $H_i(t)<H_{i+1}(t)$.

738: 

739: 

740: It turns out that this perturbation of the Palm distribution does

741: not entirely spoil Burke's Theorem.

742: \begin{cor}\label{cr:burke}

743: Marginally, $P_0(t)-1$ and $-H_0(t)$

744: are two independent Poisson processes with

745: respective jump rates $1-\vr$ and $\vr$.

746: \end{cor}

747: \begin{proof}

748: The evolution of $P_0(t)$ depends only on the initial

749: configuration\linebreak[4] $\{\wt\eta_x(0)\}_{x>1}$ and the Poisson

750: clocks governing the jumps over the edges $\{x\to x+1\}_{x\geq1}$. The

751: evolution of $H_0(t)$ depends only on the initial configuration $\{\wt\eta_x(0)\}_{x<0}$

752: and the Poisson clocks governing the jumps over the edges $\{x\to x+1\}_{x<0}$.

753: Hence $P_0(t)$ and $H_0(t)$ are independent. Moreover, $\{\wt\eta_x(0)\}_{x>1,\ x<0}$

754: is Bernoulli($\vr$) distributed, just like in the Palm distribution. Hence

755: Burke's Theorem applies to $P_0(t)$. As for $H_0(t)$, notice that $\un1-\un{\wt\eta}(t)$,

756: with $\un1_{x}\equiv1$, is a TASEP with holes and particles interchanged and

757: particles jumping to the left. Hence Burke's Theorem applies to $-H_0(t)$.

758: \end{proof}%

759: 

760: Now we can state the precise connection with the last-passage model.

761: For $i,j\geq 0$ let $T_{ij}$ denote the time when particle $P_j$ and hole $H_i$ exchange

762: places, with $T_{00}=0$.  Then

763: \[

764: \text{the processes $\{G_{ij}\}_{i,j\geq0}$ and $\{T_{ij}\}_{i,j\geq0}$ are equal in

765: distribution.  }

766: \]

767: For the marginal distributions on the

768: $i$- and $j$-axes  we see the truth

769: of the statement from Corollary \ref{cr:burke}.  More generally,

770: we can compare  the growing cluster

771: \[

772: \mathcal C(t)=\{(i,j)\in\Zb_+^2: T_{ij}\leq t\}

773: \]

774: with $\Ac(t)$   defined by \eqref{eq:def-Ac},

775: and observe that they are  countable state Markov chains

776: with the same  initial state and  identical bounded jump rates.

777: 

778: Since each particle jump corresponds to exchanging places

779: with a particular hole, one can deduce that at time $T_{ij}$,

780: \be

781: P_j(T_{ij})=i-j+1 \quad\text{ and }\quad H_i(T_{ij})=i-j.\label{eq:places}

782: \ee

783: 

784: %\subsection{M/M/1 queues and a zero range process}

785: 

786: %***** Anything worth putting here? Maybe the connection with the theorem in Walrand's book about jumping customer seeing equilibrium? ***** <---- Coming later in the Markovian business.

787: 

788: %Returning to

789: By

790: the queuing interpretation of the

791: TASEP, we represent particles as ser\-vers, and the holes between $P_j$ and $P_{j-1}$

792: as customers in the queue of server $j$. Then \emph{the occupation of the

793: last-passage point $(i,\,j)$ is the same event as the

794: completion of the service of customer $i$

795: by server $j$}. This infinite system of queues is equivalent to a constant rate totally asymmetric zero range process.

796: 

797: \subsection{The rarefaction fan}\label{sc:rarepart}

798: 

799: The classical rarefaction fan initial condition for TASEP

800: is constructed with two densities $\la_\ell>\la_r$.

801: Initially  particles to the left of the origin

802: obey Bernoulli $\la_\ell$ distributions, and particles to the

803: right of the origin follow Bernoulli $\la_r$ distributions.

804: Of interest here is the behavior of a second-class particle

805: or the competition interface, and we refer the reader to

806: articles \cite{serf, compint, fermarpim, mountguiol, seck}

807: 

808: Following the development of the previous section,

809:  condition this initial

810:  measure on having a hole $H_0$ at $0$, and a particle $P_0$

811: at $1$. Then as  observed earlier, $H_0$

812: jumps to the left according to a Poisson$(\la_\ell)$ process, while

813: $P_0$ jumps to the right according to a Poisson$(1-\la_r)$ process.

814: To represent this situation in the last-passage picture,  choose

815: boundary weights $\{\hat{\om}_{i0}\}$ i.i.d.~Exp($1-\la_r$), and

816:  $\{\hat{\om}_{0j}\}$ i.i.d.~Exp($\la_\ell$),  corresponding to the waiting

817: times of $H_0$ and $P_0$. Suppose  $\la_\ell>\vr>\la_r$ and

818: $\om$ is the $\vr$-equilibrium

819: boundary condition defined by \eqref{eq:bondis}.

820: Then we have the

821: stochastic domination  $\om_{i0}\ge \hat{\om}_{i0}$ and

822:  $\om_{0j}\ge \hat\om_{0j}$, and we can realize these inequalities

823: by coupling the boundary weights.   The proofs

824: of Section \ref{sc:gen-bd} show that in fact one need not

825: insist on exponential boundary weights $\{\hat{\om}_{i0}, \hat{\om}_{0j}\}$,

826: but instead only inequality \eqref{eq:rareom} is required for

827: the fluctuations.

828: 

829: \subsection{A deposition model}

830: 

831: In this section we describe a deposition model that gives a direct graphical connection between

832: %links with

833: the

834: TASEP and the last-passage percolation.  This point of view

835: is not needed for the later proofs, hence we only give a

836: brief explanation.

837: %% outlined here can be made precise

838: %% to make the connection precise via this graphical construction.

839: 

840: \begin{figure}[ht]

841: \begin{center}

842: \begin{picture}(320,180)(-20,-20)

843: \put(-10,0){\vector(1,0){300}}

844: \put(0,-10){\vector(0,1){160}}

845: \put(140,30){\vector(1,0){150}}

846: \put(157,23){\vector(-1,1){127}}

847: \put(140,40){\line(1,0){150}}

848: \put(120,60){\line(1,0){170}}

849: \put(100,80){\line(1,0){190}}

850: \put(80,100){\line(1,0){210}}

851: \put(60,120){\line(1,0){230}}

852: \put(40,140){\line(1,0){250}}

853: \put(40,140){\line(0,1){10}}

854: \put(60,120){\line(0,1){30}}

855: \put(80,100){\line(0,1){50}}

856: \put(100,80){\line(0,1){70}}

857: \put(120,60){\line(0,1){90}}

858: \put(140,40){\line(0,1){110}}

859: \multiput(160,30)(20,0){7}{\line(0,1){120}}

860: \put(147,27){\large$\star$}

861: \multiput(166,26)(20,0){6}{\large$\triangledown$}

862: \multiput(126,47)(-20,20){5}{\large$\vartriangle$}

863: \multiput(147,47)(20,0){7}{\large$\circ$}

864: \multiput(127,67)(20,0){8}{\large$\circ$}

865: \multiput(107,87)(20,0){9}{\large$\circ$}

866: \multiput(87,107)(20,0){10}{\large$\circ$}

867: \multiput(67,127)(20,0){11}{\large$\circ$}

868: \put(139,23){\tiny$(0,0)$}

869: \put(285,23){\tiny$i$}

870: \put(28,142){\tiny$j$}

871: \put(169,21){\tiny$1$}

872: \put(189,21){\tiny$2$}

873: \put(209,21){\tiny$3$}

874: \put(229,21){\tiny$4$}

875: \put(249,21){\tiny$5$}

876: \put(269,21){\tiny$6$}

877: \put(123,45){\tiny$1$}

878: \put(103,65){\tiny$2$}

879: \put(83,85){\tiny$3$}

880: \put(63,105){\tiny$4$}

881: \put(43,125){\tiny$5$}

882: \put(202,63){\tiny$(5,2)$}

883: \put(222,43){\tiny$(5,1)$}

884: \put(182,83){\tiny$(5,3)$}

885: \put(182,63){\tiny$(4,2)$}

886: \put(222,63){\tiny$(6,2)$}

887: \multiput(20,-2)(20,0){14}{\line(0,1){4}}

888: \multiput(-2,20)(0,20){7}{\line(1,0){4}}

889: \put(285,-7){\tiny$x$}

890: \put(-7,147){\tiny$h$}

891: \put(15,-7){\tiny$-6$}

892: \put(35,-7){\tiny$-5$}

893: \put(55,-7){\tiny$-4$}

894: \put(75,-7){\tiny$-3$}

895: \put(95,-7){\tiny$-2$}

896: \put(115,-7){\tiny$-1$}

897: \put(138,-7){\tiny$0$}

898: \put(158,-7){\tiny$1$}

899: \put(178,-7){\tiny$2$}

900: \put(198,-7){\tiny$3$}

901: \put(218,-7){\tiny$4$}

902: \put(238,-7){\tiny$5$}

903: \put(258,-7){\tiny$6$}

904: \put(278,-7){\tiny$7$}

905: \put(-12,18){\tiny$-1$}

906: \put(-7,38){\tiny$0$}

907: \put(-7,58){\tiny$1$}

908: \put(-7,78){\tiny$2$}

909: \put(-7,98){\tiny$3$}

910: \put(-7,118){\tiny$4$}

911: \put(-7,138){\tiny$5$}

912: \put(137,5){\large$\circ$}

913: \put(157,5){\large$\bullet$}

914: \put(136,12){\tiny$H_0$}

915: \put(156,12){\tiny$P_0$}

916: {\linethickness{2pt}

917: \put(130,40){\line(1,0){30}}

918: \put(160,20){\line(0,1){20}}

919: \put(160,20){\line(1,0){10}}

920: }

921: \end{picture}

922: \end{center}

923: \caption{The initial configuration}\label{fig:ini}

924: \end{figure}

925: 

926: We start by tilting the $j$-axis and all the vertical columns of Figure \ref{fig:iniri} by 45 degrees, resulting in Figure \ref{fig:ini}.

927: This picture represents

928: the same initial situation as Figure \ref{fig:iniri}, but note

929: that now the $j$-coordinates must be read  in the direction $\nwarrow$.

930: (As before, some  squares are labeled with their $(i,j)$-coordinates.)

931: The $i-j$ tilted coordinate system is embedded in an $x-h$ orthogonal system.

932: 

933: \begin{figure}[ht]

934: \begin{center}

935: \begin{picture}(320,180)(-20,-20)

936: \put(-10,0){\vector(1,0){300}}

937: \put(0,-10){\vector(0,1){160}}

938: \put(140,30){\vector(1,0){150}}

939: \put(157,23){\vector(-1,1){127}}

940: \put(140,40){\line(1,0){150}}

941: \put(120,60){\line(1,0){170}}

942: \put(100,80){\line(1,0){190}}

943: \put(80,100){\line(1,0){210}}

944: \put(60,120){\line(1,0){230}}

945: \put(40,140){\line(1,0){250}}

946: \put(40,140){\line(0,1){10}}

947: \put(60,120){\line(0,1){30}}

948: \put(80,100){\line(0,1){50}}

949: \put(100,80){\line(0,1){70}}

950: \put(120,60){\line(0,1){90}}

951: \put(140,40){\line(0,1){110}}

952: \multiput(160,30)(20,0){7}{\line(0,1){120}}

953: \put(147,27){\large$\star$}

954: \multiput(166,26)(20,0){5}{\large$\blacktriangledown$}

955: \put(266,26){\large$\triangledown$}

956: \multiput(126,47)(-20,20){4}{\large$\blacktriangle$}

957: \put(46,127){\large$\vartriangle$}

958: \multiput(247,47)(20,0){2}{\large$\circ$}

959: \multiput(207,67)(20,0){4}{\large$\circ$}

960: \multiput(187,87)(20,0){5}{\large$\circ$}

961: \multiput(87,107)(20,0){10}{\large$\circ$}

962: \multiput(67,127)(20,0){11}{\large$\circ$}

963: \multiput(127,67)(-20,20){2}{\multiput(0,0)(20,0){4}{\large$\bullet$}}

964: \multiput(147,47)(20,0){5}{\large$\bullet$}

965: \put(139,23){\tiny$(0,0)$}

966: \put(285,23){\tiny$i$}

967: \put(28,142){\tiny$j$}

968: \put(169,21){\tiny$1$}

969: \put(189,21){\tiny$2$}

970: \put(209,21){\tiny$3$}

971: \put(229,21){\tiny$4$}

972: \put(249,21){\tiny$5$}

973: \put(269,21){\tiny$6$}

974: \put(123,45){\tiny$1$}

975: \put(103,65){\tiny$2$}

976: \put(83,85){\tiny$3$}

977: \put(63,105){\tiny$4$}

978: \put(43,125){\tiny$5$}

979: \multiput(20,-2)(20,0){14}{\line(0,1){4}}

980: \multiput(-2,20)(0,20){7}{\line(1,0){4}}

981: \put(285,-7){\tiny$x$}

982: \put(-7,147){\tiny$h$}

983: \put(15,-7){\tiny$-6$}

984: \put(35,-7){\tiny$-5$}

985: \put(55,-7){\tiny$-4$}

986: \put(75,-7){\tiny$-3$}

987: \put(95,-7){\tiny$-2$}

988: \put(115,-7){\tiny$-1$}

989: \put(138,-7){\tiny$0$}

990: \put(158,-7){\tiny$1$}

991: \put(178,-7){\tiny$2$}

992: \put(198,-7){\tiny$3$}

993: \put(218,-7){\tiny$4$}

994: \put(238,-7){\tiny$5$}

995: \put(258,-7){\tiny$6$}

996: \put(278,-7){\tiny$7$}

997: \put(-12,18){\tiny$-1$}

998: \put(-7,38){\tiny$0$}

999: \put(-7,58){\tiny$1$}

1000: \put(-7,78){\tiny$2$}

1001: \put(-7,98){\tiny$3$}

1002: \put(-7,118){\tiny$4$}

1003: \put(-7,138){\tiny$5$}

1004: \put(202,63){\tiny$(5,2)$}

1005: \put(222,43){\tiny$(5,1)$}

1006: \put(182,83){\tiny$(5,3)$}

1007: \put(182,63){\tiny$(4,2)$}

1008: \put(222,63){\tiny$(6,2)$}

1009: \multiput(57,5)(160,0){2}{\large$\circ$}

1010: \multiput(97,5)(20,0){4}{\large$\circ$}

1011: \put(77,5){\large$\bullet$}

1012: \multiput(177,5)(60,0){2}{\multiput(0,0)(20,0){2}{\large$\bullet$}}

1013: \put(203,6){$\dashrightarrow$}

1014: \put(203,6){$\dashleftarrow$}

1015: \put(56,12){\tiny$H_0$}

1016: \put(96,12){\tiny$H_1$}

1017: \put(116,12){\tiny$H_2$}

1018: \put(136,12){\tiny$H_3$}

1019: \put(156,12){\tiny$H_4$}

1020: \put(216,12){\tiny$H_5$}

1021: \put(76,12){\tiny$P_4$}

1022: \put(176,12){\tiny$P_3$}

1023: \put(196,12){\tiny$P_2$}

1024: \put(236,12){\tiny$P_1$}

1025: \put(256,12){\tiny$P_0$}

1026: \multiput(155,33)(20,37){2}{

1027: \multiput(0,0)(20,0){2}{\vector(1,0){11}}}

1028: \multiput(185,35)(0,20){2}{\vector(-1,1){10}}

1029: \put(175,50){\vector(1,0){11}}

1030: {\linethickness{2pt}

1031: \put(50,120){\line(1,0){30}}

1032: \put(80,100){\line(1,0){100}}

1033: \multiput(180,80)(60,-40){2}{\line(1,0){20}}

1034: \put(200,60){\line(1,0){40}}

1035: \put(260,20){\line(1,0){10}}

1036: \multiput(80,100)(160,-60){2}{\line(0,1){20}}

1037: \multiput(180,80)(20,-20){2}{\line(0,1){20}}

1038: \put(260,20){\line(0,1){20}}

1039: \multiput(201,80)(4,0){5}{\line(1,0){2}}

1040: \multiput(220,61)(0,4){5}{\line(0,1){2}}

1041: }

1042: \end{picture}

1043: \end{center}

1044: \caption{A possible move at a later time}\label{fig:later}

1045: \end{figure}

1046: 

1047: Figure \ref{fig:later} shows the later situation that corresponds

1048: to Figure \ref{fig:laterri}. As before, the thickset line is the boundary of the squares belonging to $\Ac(t)$ of \eqref{eq:def-Ac}. Whenever it makes sense, the height $h_x$ of a column $x$ is defined as the $h$-coordinate (i.e.\ the vertical height) of the thickset line above the edge $[x,\,x+1]$ on the $x$-axis. Define the increments $\eta_x=h_{x-1}-h_x$ and notice that, whenever defined, $\eta_x\in\{0,\,1\}$ due to the tilting we made. The last passage rules, converted for this picture, tell us that occupation of a new square happens at rate one unless it would violate $\eta_x\in\{0,\,1\}$ for some $x$. Moreover, one can read that the occupation of a square $(i,\,j)$ is the same event as the pair $(\eta_{i-j},\,\eta_{i-j+1})$ changing from $(1,\,0)$ to $(0,\,1)$. Comparing this to \eqref{eq:places} leads us to the conclusion that $\eta_x$, whenever defined, is the occupation variable of the simple exclusion process that corresponds to the last passage model. This way one can also conveniently include the particles ($\eta_x=1$) and holes ($\eta_x=0$) on the $x$-axis, as seen on the figures. Notice also that the time-increment $h_x(t)-h_x(0)$ is the cumulative particle current across the bond $[x,\,x+1]$.

1049: 

1050: \subsection{The characteristics}\label{sec:char}

1051: 

1052: One-dimensional conservative particle systems have the conservation law

1053: \[

1054: \pt_t\vr(t,\,x)+\pt_xf(\vr(t,\,x))=0

1055: \]

1056: under the Eulerian hydrodynamic scaling, where $\vr(t,\,x)$ is the expected particle number per site and $f(\vr(t,\,x))$ is the macroscopic particle flux around the rescaled position $x$ at the rescaled time $t$, see e.g.\ \cite{cl} for details. Disturbances of the solution propagate with the characteristic speed $f'(\vr)$.

1057: The macroscopic particle flux for TASEP is $f(\vr)=\vr(1-\vr)$,

1058: and consequently the characteristic speed is $f'(\vr)=1-2\vr$.

1059: %(This means that a disturbance in the density profile travels at speed $1-2\vr$.)

1060: Thus the characteristic curve started

1061: at the origin  is  $t\mapsto (1-2\vr)t$.  To identify the  point $(m,n)$

1062: in the last-passage picture that corresponds to th%

1063: %e  characteristic

1064: is

1065: curve, we reason  approximately. Namely, we look for $m$ and $n$ such that hole $H_m$ and particle $P_n$ interchange positions at around time $t$ and the characteristic position $(1-2\vr)t$. By time $t$, that particle $P_n$ has jumped over approximately $(1-\vr)t$ sites due to Burke's Theorem. Hence at time zero, $P_n$ is approximately at position $(1-2\vr)t-(1-\vr)t=-\vr t$. Since the particle density is $\vr$, the particle labels around this position are $n\approx\vr^2t$ at time zero. Similarly, holes travel at a speed $-\vr$, so hole $H_m$ starts from approximately $(1-2\vr)t+\vr t$. They have density $1-\vr$, which indicates $m\approx(1-\vr)^2t$.

1066: %at time $G_{0n}\approx n/\vr$ particle $P_n$ is at position $\approx -n$,

1067: %on average it travels at speed $1-\vr$ for a time $t-n/\vr$ to arrive

1068: %at point $(1-2\vr)t$, and so we get  the equation

1069: %\[

1070: %-n + (1-\vr)\bigl(t-\frac{n}\vr \bigr)= (1-2\vr)t.

1071: %\]

1072: %From this we  deduce $n=\vr^2t$, and then from

1073: %$m-n=(1-2\vr)t$ comes  $m=(1-\vr)^2t$.

1074: Thus we are led to consider the point

1075: $(m,n)=(\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t}, \tfl{\vr^2t})$ as done in \eqref{eq:char-mn}.

1076: 

1077: \section{Preliminaries}

1078: \label{sec:prel}

1079: 

1080: We turn to establish some basic facts and tools.

1081: First an extension

1082: of  Corollary \ref{cr:burke}

1083: to show that Burke's Theorem holds for every hole and particle

1084:  in the last-passage picture. Define

1085: \[

1086: \ba

1087: I_{ij}:&=G_{ij}-G_{\{i-1\}j}\quad\text{for }i\geq1,\ j\geq0,\quad\text{ and}\\

1088: J_{ij}:&=G_{ij}-G_{i\{j-1\}}\quad\text{for }i\geq0,\ j\geq1.

1089: \ea

1090: \]

1091: $I_{ij}$ is the time it takes for particle $P_j$ to jump again after its jump to site $i-j$.

1092: %Equivalently, it is the time between the departures of customers $i-1$ and $i$ from server $j$.

1093: $J_{ij}$ is the time it takes for hole $H_i$ to jump again after its jump to site $i-j+1$.

1094: %Equivalently, it is the time between the departures of customer $i$ from servers $j-1$ and $j$.

1095: Applying the last passage rules \eqref{eq:grec} shows

1096: \be

1097: \begin{split}

1098: I_{ij}&=G_{ij}-G_{\{i-1\}j}\\

1099: &=(G_{\{i-1\}j}\lor G_{i\{j-1\}})+\om_{ij}-G_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}-(G_{\{i-1\}j}-G_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}})\label{eq:iij}\\

1100: %&=([G_{\{i-1\}j}-G_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}]\lor[G_{i\{j-1\}}-G_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}])+\om_{ij}-J_{\{i-1\}j}\\

1101: &=(J_{\{i-1\}j}\lor I_{i\{j-1\}})+\om_{ij}-J_{\{i-1\}j}\\

1102: &=(I_{i\{j-1\}}-J_{\{i-1\}j})^++\om_{ij}.

1103: \end{split}

1104: \ee

1105: Similarly,

1106: \be

1107: J_{ij}=(J_{\{i-1\}j}-I_{i\{j-1\}})^++\om_{ij}.\label{eq:jij}

1108: \ee

1109: For later use, we define

1110: \be

1111: X_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}=I_{i\{j-1\}}\land J_{\{i-1\}j}.\label{eq:xdef}

1112: \ee

1113: \begin{lm}\label{lm:markov}

1114: Fix $i,\,j\geq1$. If $I_{i\{j-1\}}$ and $J_{\{i-1\}j}$ are independent

1115: exponentials with respective parameters $1-\vr$ and $\vr$, then $I_{ij}$, $J_{ij}$, and $X_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}$ are jointly independent exponentials with respective parameters $1-\vr$, $\vr$, and $1$.

1116: \end{lm}

1117: \begin{proof}

1118: As the variables $I_{i\{j-1\}}$, $J_{\{i-1\}j}$ and $\om_{ij}$ are independent, we use \eqref{eq:iij}, \eqref{eq:jij} and \eqref{eq:xdef} to write the joint moment generating function as

1119: \begin{multline*}

1120: M_{I_{ij},\,J_{ij},\,X_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}}(s,\,t,\,u):=\Ev\e{sI_{ij}+tJ_{ij}+uX_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}}\\

1121: =\Ev\e{s(I_{i\{j-1\}}-J_{\{i-1\}j})^++t(J_{\{i-1\}j}-I_{i\{j-1\}})^++u(I_{i\{j-1\}}\land J_{\{i-1\}j})}\cdot\Ev\e{(s+t)\om_{ij}}

1122: \end{multline*}

1123: where it is defined. Then, with the assumption of the lemma

1124: and the definition of $\om_{ij}$, elementary calculations show

1125: \[

1126: M_{I_{ij},\,J_{ij},\,X_{\{i-1\}\{j-1\}}}(s,\,t,\,u)=\frac{\vr\cdot(1-\vr)}{(1-\vr-s)\cdot(\vr-t)\cdot(1-u)}.

1127: \]

1128: \end{proof}

1129: 

1130: 

1131: 

1132: 

1133: 

1134: 

1135: Let $\Sigma$ be the set of doubly-infinite down-right paths

1136: in the first quadrant of the $(i,j)$-coordinate system.

1137:  In terms of the sequence of points visited

1138:  a path $\si\in\Sigma$ is given by

1139: \[

1140: \si=\{\dots\to

1141:  (p_{-1}, \,q_{-1})\to (p_0,\,q_0)\to(p_1,\,q_1)\to\dots

1142: \to(p_l,\,q_l)\to\dots\}

1143: \]

1144: with all $p_l,q_l\geq 0$ and

1145:  steps

1146: \[

1147: (p_{l+1},\,q_{l+1})-(p_l,\,q_l)= %%%(1,0)\ \text{ or }\ (0,-1)

1148: \begin{cases} (1,0) &\text{(direction $\to$ in Figure \ref{fig:iniri}), or}\\

1149: (0,-1) &\text{(direction $\downarrow$  in Figure \ref{fig:iniri}).}

1150: \end{cases}

1151: \]

1152: The interior

1153: of the set enclosed by $\si$ is defined by

1154: \[

1155: \mathcal B(\si)=\{(i,\,j)\,:\,0\leq i<p_l,\ 0\leq j<q_l\text{ for some }(p_l,\,q_l)\in\si\}.

1156: \]

1157: The last-passage time increments along $\si$ are the variables

1158: \[

1159:  Z_l(\si)=G_{p_{l+1}q_{l+1}}-G_{p_lq_l}=

1160:  \left\{\ba

1161: &I_{p_{l+1}q_{l+1}},&&\text{if }(p_{l+1},\,q_{l+1})-(p_l,\,q_l)=(1,0),\\

1162: &J_{p_lq_l},&&\text{if }(p_{l+1},\,q_{l+1})-(p_l,\,q_l)=(0,-1),

1163: \ea\right.

1164: \]

1165: for $l\in\Zb$.

1166: We admit the possibility that  $\si$ is the union of the $i$- and

1167: $j$-coordinate

1168: axes, in which case $\mathcal B(\si)$ is empty.

1169: \begin{lm}\label{lm:NE}

1170: For any $\si\in\Sigma$,  the random variables

1171: \be

1172: \bigl\{\{X_{ij}\,:\,(i,\,j)\in\mathcal B(\si)\},\  \{Z_l(\si): l\in\Zb\}

1173: \bigr\}\label{eq:mind}

1174: \ee

1175: are mutually independent, $I$'s with $\Expd(1-\vr)$, $J$'s with

1176:  $\Expd(\vr)$, and $X$'s with $\Expd(1)$ distribution.

1177: \end{lm}

1178: \begin{proof}  We first consider the countable set of

1179: paths that join the $j$-axis to the $i$-axis, in other words

1180: those for which there exist

1181:  finite $n_0<n_1$ such that

1182: $p_{n}=0$ for $n\leq n_0$ and  $q_{n}=0$ for $n\geq n_1$.

1183: For these paths we argue by induction on $\mathcal B(\si)$.

1184: When $\mathcal B(\si)$ is the empty set,

1185:  the statement reduces to the independence of $\om$-values on the $i$- and $j$-axes

1186: which is part of the set-up.

1187: 

1188: Now given an arbitrary $\si\in\Sigma$ that connects the $j$- and the $i$-axes, consider

1189: a {\sl growth corner} $(i,j)$ for $\mathcal B(\si)$,

1190: by which we mean that for some index $l\in\Zb$,

1191: \[ (p_{l-1}, q_{l-1}), (p_{l}, q_{l}), (p_{l+1}, q_{l+1})

1192: \;=\;

1193: (i,j+1), (i,j), (i+1,j). \]

1194: A new valid $\wt\si\in\Sigma$ can be produced by

1195: replacing the above points with

1196: \[ (\wt p_{l-1}, \wt q_{l-1}), (\wt p_{l}, \wt q_{l}),

1197: (\wt p_{l+1}, \wt q_{l+1})

1198: \;=\;

1199: (i,j+1), (i+1,j+1), (i+1,j) \]

1200: and now $\mathcal B(\wt\si)=\mathcal B(\si)\cup\{(i,j)\}$.

1201: 

1202: The change inflicted on the set of random variables

1203: \eqref{eq:mind} is that

1204: \be

1205: \{I_{\{i+1\}j},\ J_{i\{j+1\}}\}\label{eq:rem}

1206: \ee

1207: has been replaced by

1208: \be

1209: \{I_{\{i+1\}\{j+1\}},\ J_{\{i+1\}\{j+1\}},\ X_{ij}\}.\label{eq:add}

1210: \ee

1211: By \eqref{eq:iij}--\eqref{eq:jij}

1212: variables  \eqref{eq:add} are determined by \eqref{eq:rem} and

1213: $\om_{\{i+1\}\{j+1\}}$.  If we assume

1214: inductively that  $\si$ satisfies the conclusion we seek, then

1215: so does $\wt\si$ by

1216:  Lemma \ref{lm:markov} and because in the situation under

1217: consideration  $\om_{\{i+1\}\{j+1\}}$ is

1218: independent of the variables in \eqref{eq:mind}.

1219: 

1220:  For an arbitrary $\sigma$ the statement follows

1221: because the independence of the random variables in \eqref{eq:mind}

1222: follows from independence of finite subcollections.

1223: Consider any square $R=\{0\leq i,j\leq M\}$  large enough so that

1224: the corner $(M,M)$ lies outside $\si\cup\mathcal B(\si)$.

1225: Then the $X$- and $Z(\sigma)$-variables associated to $\si$

1226: that lie in $R$ are a subset of the variables of a certain

1227: path $\wt\si$ that goes through the points $(0,M)$ and $(M,0)$.

1228: Thus the variables

1229: in \eqref{eq:mind} that lie inside an arbitrarily large square

1230: are independent.

1231: \end{proof}

1232: 

1233: 

1234: %In particular, this lemma states that two straight last-passage paths either leaving a common point or arriving to a common point meet jointly independent $G$-increments. Compare this result to the first paragraph of the proof of Theorem 2.1 in

1235: % Cator and Groeneboom \cite{cuberoot}.

1236: 

1237: By applying Lemma \ref{lm:NE}

1238: to a path that contains the horizontal line  $q_l\equiv j$ we get

1239: a version of Burke's theorem: particle

1240: $P_j$ obeys a Poisson process after time

1241: $G_{0j}$ when it  ``enters the last-passage picture.''

1242: The vertical line  $p_l\equiv i$

1243: gives the corresponding  statement for hole $H_i$.

1244: 

1245: Example 2.10.2 of Walrand \cite{walrand} gives an

1246: intuitive understanding of this result. Our initial state

1247: corresponds to the situation when particle $P_0$

1248: and hole $H_0$ have just exchanged places

1249:  in an equilibrium system of queues. $H_0$ is

1250: therefore a customer who has just moved from queue 0 to queue 1.

1251: By that Example, this customer sees an equilibrium system of

1252: queues every time he jumps. Similarly, any new customer arriving

1253: to the queue of particle $P_1$ sees an equilibrium queue system in

1254: front, so Burke's theorem extends to the region between $P_0$ and $H_0$.

1255: 

1256: Up-right turns do not have independence:

1257: variables $I_{ij}$ and $J_{i\{j+1\}}$, or $J_{ij}$ and $I_{\{i+1\}j}$

1258: are not independent.

1259: %However, ``light turns'', i.e.\ paths consisting of steps $\to$ and $\searrow$ (this second kind going against last-passage allowable steps) will meet independent $G$-increments.

1260: 

1261: The same inductive argument with a growing cluster $\mathcal B(\si)$

1262:  proves a result that corresponds to a coupling of

1263:  two exclusion systems $\eta$ and $\wt\eta$ where the

1264: latter has a higher density of particles.

1265: However, the lemma is a purely deterministic

1266: statement.

1267: 

1268: \begin{lm}\label{lm:basic1}

1269: Consider two assignments of values $\{\om_{ij}\}$ and $\{\wt\om_{ij}\}$

1270: that satisfy $\om_{00}=\wt\om_{00}=0$,

1271:  $\om_{0j}\geq\wt\om_{0j}$, $\om_{i0}\leq\wt\om_{i0}$,

1272: and $\om_{ij}=\wt\om_{ij}$  for all $i,j\geq 1$.     Then all

1273: increments satisfy  $I_{ij}\leq\wt I_{ij}$ and  $J_{ij}\geq\wt J_{ij}$.

1274: \end{lm}

1275: \begin{proof}  One  proves by induction that the statement holds for

1276: all increments between points in $\si\cup\mathcal B(\si)$ for

1277: those paths $\si\in\Sigma$ for which $\mathcal B(\si)$ is finite.

1278: If $\mathcal B(\si)$ is empty the statement is the assumption

1279: made on the $\om$- and $\wt\om$-values on the $i$- and $j$-axes. The induction

1280: step that adds a growth corner to $\mathcal B(\si)$

1281:  follows from equations \eqref{eq:iij} and \eqref{eq:jij}.

1282: \end{proof}

1283: 

1284: \subsection{The reversed process.}

1285: 

1286: Fix $m>0$ and $n>0$, and define

1287: \[

1288: H_{ij}=G_{mn}-G_{ij}

1289: \]

1290: for $0\leq i\leq m$, $0\leq j\leq n$. This is the time needed to ``free'' the

1291: point $(i,\,j)$ in the reversed process, started from the moment when $(m,\,n)$

1292: becomes occupied.  For $0\leq i<m$ and $0\leq j<n$,

1293: \[

1294: \ba

1295: H_{ij}&%=G_{mn}-G_{ij}\\

1296: %&=G_{mn}-(G_{\{i+1\}j}\land G_{i\{j+1\}})+(G_{\{i+1\}j}\land G_{i\{j+1\}})-G_{ij}\\

1297: =-((G_{\{i+1\}j}-G_{mn})\land(G_{i\{j+1\}}-G_{mn}))\\

1298: &\qquad+((G_{\{i+1\}j}-G_{ij})\land(G_{i\{j+1\}}-G_{ij}))\\

1299: %&=((G_{mn}-G_{\{i+1\}j})\lor(G_{mn}-G_{i\{j+1\}}))\\

1300: %&\qquad+((G_{\{i+1\}j}-G_{ij})\land(G_{i\{j+1\}}-G_{ij}))\\

1301: %&=H_{\{i+1\}j}\lor H_{i\{j+1\}}+I_{\{i+1\}j}\land J_{i\{j+1\}}\\

1302: &=H_{\{i+1\}j}\lor H_{i\{j+1\}}+X_{ij}

1303: \ea

1304: \]

1305: with definition \eqref{eq:xdef} of the $X$-variables. Taking this and Lemma \ref{lm:NE} into account, we see that the $H$-process is a

1306: copy of the original $G$-process, but with reversed coordinate directions.

1307: Precisely speaking,  define $\om^*_{00}=0$,

1308: and then for $0<i\leq m$, $0<j\leq n$: $\om^*_{i0}=I_{\{m-i+1\}n}$, $\om^*_{0j}=J_{m\{n-j+1\}}$,

1309: and $\om^*_{ij}=X_{\{m-i\}\{n-j\}}$.  Then  $\{\om^*_{ij}: 0\leq i\leq m, 0\leq j\leq n\}$

1310: is distributed like $\{\om_{ij}: 0\leq i\leq m, 0\leq j\leq n\}$ in \eqref{eq:bondis}, and

1311:  the process

1312: \be

1313: G^*_{ij}=H_{\{m-i\}\{n-j\}}\label{eq:def-K}

1314: \ee

1315: for $0\leq i\leq m$, $0\leq j\leq n$ satisfies

1316: \[

1317: G^*_{ij}=(G^*_{\{i-1\}j}\lor G^*_{i\{j-1\}})+\om^*_{ij}, \qquad 0\leq i\leq m\,,\, 0\leq j\leq n

1318: \]

1319: (with the formal assumption $G^*_{\{-1\}j}=G^*_{i\{-1\}}=0$), see \eqref{eq:grec}.

1320: Thus the pair  $(G^*,\om^*)$ has the same distribution as $(G,\om)$ in a fixed

1321: rectangle $\{0\leq i\leq m\}\times \{ 0\leq j\leq n\}$. Throughout the paper quantities defined in the reversed process will be denoted by a superscript $^*$, and they will always be equal in distribution to their original forward versions.

1322: 

1323: \subsection{Exit point and competition interface.}

1324: 

1325: For integers $x$ define

1326: \be

1327: U^\vr_x=G_{\{x^+\}\{x^-\}}=\begin{cases}

1328: \sum_{i=0}^x \om_{i0}, &x\geq 0\\

1329: \sum_{j=0}^{-x} \om_{0j}, &x\leq 0.

1330: \end{cases} \label{eq:udef}

1331: \ee

1332:  Referring to the two

1333: coordinate systems in Figure \ref{fig:ini},

1334: this is  the last-passage time of

1335:  the point on the $(i,j)$-axes  above point  $x$ on the $x$-axis.

1336: This point is on the $i$-axis

1337: if $x\geq0$ and  on the $j$-axis if $x\leq0$.

1338: 

1339: Fix  integers $m\geq x^+\lor 1$, $n\geq x^-\lor 1$, and define $\Pi_x(m,n)$

1340: as the set of directed paths $\pi$ connecting

1341: $(x^+\lor 1,\,x^-\lor 1)$ and $(m,\,n)$

1342: using allowable steps \eqref{eq:allow}. Then let

1343: \be

1344: A_x=A_x(m,n)=\max_{\pi\in\Pi_x(m,n)}\sum_{(p,q)\in\pi}\om_{pq}\label{eq:adef}

1345: \ee

1346: be the maximal weight collected by a path from

1347: $(x^+,\,x^-)$ to $(m,\,n)$ that immediately exits the axes,

1348: and does not  count $\om_{x^+x^-}$.

1349: Notice that $A_{-1}=A_0=A_1$ and this value is the last-passage

1350: time from $(1,1)$ to $(m,n)$ that completely ignores the

1351: boundaries, or in other words, sets the boundary values

1352: $\om_{i0}$ and $\om_{0j}$  equal

1353: to zero.

1354: 

1355: By the continuity of the exponential distribution

1356:  there is an a.s.\ unique path $\wh\pi$

1357:  from $(0,\,0)$ to $(m,\,n)$ which

1358: collects the maximal weight $G^\vr_{mn}$.   Earlier we defined

1359: the {\sl exit point}  $Z^\vr\in\Zb$ to represent  the last

1360: point of this path on either the $i$-axis or the $j$-axis.

1361: Equivalently we can now state that

1362:  $Z^\vr$ is the a.s.\ unique integer for which

1363: \[

1364: G_{mn}^\vr=U^\vr_{Z^\vr}+A_{Z^\vr}.

1365: \]

1366: Simply because the maximal path $\wh\pi$ necessarily goes through either

1367: $(0,1)$ or $(1,0)$, $Z^\vr$ is always nonzero.

1368: 

1369: %%\hop

1370: 

1371: Recall the definition of the competition interface in \eqref{eq:def-vphi}.

1372: Now we can observe

1373: that the competition interface is the time reversal

1374: of the maximal path $\wh\pi$. Namely, the competition interface

1375: of the reversed process follows the maximal path $\wh\pi$ backwards

1376: from the corner  $(m,n)$, until it hits either the $i$- or the

1377: $j$-axis.  To make a precise statement, let us represent the

1378: a.s.\ unique maximal last-passage

1379: path, with exit point $Z^\vr$ as defined above, as

1380: \[

1381: \wh\pi=\{ (0,0)=\wh\pi_0 \to \wh\pi_1 \to \dotsm \to \wh\pi_{\lvert Z^\vr\rvert}

1382: \to\dots \to \wh\pi_{m+n}=(m,n)\},

1383: \]

1384: where  $\{\wh\pi_{\lvert Z^\vr\rvert+1}

1385: \to\dots \to \wh\pi_{m+n}\}$ is the portion of the path

1386: that  resides in the interior

1387: $\{1,\dotsc,m\}\times\{1,\dotsc,n\}$.

1388: 

1389: \begin{lm}

1390:   Let $\vp^*$

1391: be the competition interface constructed for the process

1392: $G^*$ defined by \rm{\eqref{eq:def-K}}. Then

1393: $\vp_k^*=(m,n)-\wh\pi_{m+n-k}$ for $0\leq k\leq m+n-\lvert Z^\vr\rvert$.

1394: \end{lm}

1395: \begin{proof}  Starting from $\wh\pi_{m+n}=(m,n)$,

1396: the maximal path $\wh\pi$ can be constructed backwards

1397: step by step  by always moving to the maximizing point

1398: of the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:grec}.

1399: % the equation

1400: %\[

1401: %G_{ij}= G_{\{i-1\}j}\lor G_{i\{j-1\}}+\om_{ij}.

1402: %\]

1403: This is the same as constructing the competition interface

1404: for the reversed process $G^*$ by \eqref{eq:def-vphi}. Since $G^*$ is not constructed

1405: outside the rectangle $\{0,\dotsc,m\}\times\{0,\dotsc,n\}$, we

1406: cannot assert what the competition interface does after the

1407: point

1408: \[\vp^*_{m+n-\lvert Z^\vr\rvert}=

1409: \wh\pi_{\lvert Z^\vr\rvert}=\begin{cases} (Z^\vr, 0) &\text{if $Z^\vr>0$}\\

1410: (0,-Z^\vr) &\text{if $Z^\vr<0$.}

1411: \end{cases}

1412: \qedhere

1413: \]

1414: \end{proof}

1415: Notice that, due to this lemma, $Z^{*\vr}$ defined in \eqref{eq:zstar} is indeed $Z^\vr$ defined in the reversed process, which justifies the argument following \eqref{eq:zstar}.

1416: %Recall \eqref{eq:def-vn} and \eqref{eq:def-wm}, and notice also that in the situation of the lemma,

1417: %\be

1418: %\begin{split}

1419: %&\text{$Z^\vr>0 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; v(n)<m$, and then

1420: % $v(n)=m-Z^\vr$, while}\\

1421: %&\text{$Z^\vr<0 \;\Longleftrightarrow\; w(m)<n$, and then  $w(m)=n+Z^\vr$. }

1422: %\end{split}

1423: %\label{eq:Z-vphi}

1424: %\ee

1425: 

1426: The competition interface

1427: bounds  the regions  where the boundary conditions on the  axes are

1428: felt.  From this we can get useful

1429:  bounds between last-passage times under different

1430: boundary conditions.  This is  the last-passage model equivalent

1431: of the common use of second-class particles to control discrepancies

1432: between coupled  interacting particle systems. In the next lemma,

1433: the superscript $\Wc$ represents the west boundary ($j$-axis) of the

1434: $(i,j)$-plane. Remember that $(v(n),n)$ is the left-most point of the competition interface on the horizontal line $j=n$

1435: computed in terms of the $G$-process (see \eqref{eq:def-vn}).

1436: 

1437: \begin{lm} Let $G^{\Wc=0}$ be the last-passage times of a system where

1438: we set $\om_{0j}=0$ for all $j\geq 1$. Then for $v(n)<m_1<m_2$,

1439: \begin{align*}

1440: A_0(m_2,n)-A_0(m_1,n)&\leq G^{\Wc=0}(m_2,n)-G^{\Wc=0}(m_1,n)\\

1441: &= G(m_2,n)-G(m_1,n).

1442: \end{align*}

1443: \label{lm:coup-3}

1444: \end{lm}

1445: \begin{proof} The first inequality is a consequence of

1446: Lemma \ref{lm:basic1}, because computing $A_0$ is the same

1447: as computing $G$ with all boundary values $\om_{i0}=\om_{0j}=0$ (and in fact this inequality is valid for all $m_1<m_2$.)

1448: The equality $G(m,n)=G^{\Wc=0}(m,n)$ for $m>v(n)$ follows because

1449: the maximal path $\wh\pi$ for $G(m,n)$ goes through $(1,0)$ and

1450: hence does not see the boundary values $\om_{0j}$. Thus this

1451: same path $\wh\pi$ is maximal for $G^{\Wc=0}(m,n)$ too.

1452: \end{proof}

1453: 

1454: If we set $\om_{i0}=0$ (the south boundary denoted by $\Sc$)

1455: instead, we get this

1456: statement: for $0\leq m_1<m_2\leq v(n)$,

1457: \be

1458: \begin{split}

1459: A_0(m_2,n)-A_0(m_1,n)&\geq G^{\Sc=0}(m_2,n)-G^{\Sc=0}(m_1,n)\\

1460: &= G(m_2,n)-G(m_1,n).

1461: \label{eq:coup-4}

1462: \end{split}

1463: \ee

1464: 

1465: \subsection{A coupling on the $i$-axis}

1466: 

1467: Let $1>\la>\vr>0$. As a common realization of the exponential weights $\om_{i0}^\la$ of $\Expd(1-\la)$ and $\om_{i0}^\vr$ of $\Expd(1-\vr)$ distribution, we write

1468: \be

1469: \om_{i0}^\la=\frac{1-\vr}{1-\la}\cdot\om_{i0}^\vr.\label{eq:cou}

1470: \ee

1471: We will use this coupling later for different purposes. We will also need

1472: \[

1473: \Vv(\om_{i0}^\la-\om_{i0}^\vr)=\left(\frac{1-\vr}{1-\la}-1\right)^2\cdot\frac{1}{(1-\vr)^2}=\left(\frac{1}{1-\la}-\frac{1}{1-\vr}\right)^2.

1474: \]

1475: 

1476: \subsection{Exit point and the variance of the last-passage time}

1477: 

1478: With these preliminaries

1479: we can prove  the key lemma that links the variance of the last-passage

1480: time to the weight collected along the axes.

1481: 

1482: 

1483: \begin{lm}\label{lm:ns}

1484: Fix $m,\,n$ positive integers. Then

1485: \be

1486: \ba

1487: \Vv(G^\vr_{mn})&=\frac{n}{\vr^2}-\frac{m}{(1-\vr)^2}+\frac{2}{1-\vr}\cdot\Ev(U_{Z^{\vr+}}^\vr)\\

1488: &=\frac{m}{(1-\vr)^2}-\frac{n}{\vr^2}+\frac{2}{\vr}\cdot\Ev(U_{-Z^{\vr-}}^\vr),

1489: \ea\label{eq:ns}

1490: \ee

1491: where $Z^\vr$ is the a.s.\ unique exit point of the maximal path from $(0,\,0)$ to $(m,\,n)$.

1492: \end{lm}

1493: \begin{proof}

1494: We label the total increments along the sides of the rectangle by compass

1495: directions:

1496: \[

1497: \Wc=G_{0n}^\vr-G_{00}^\vr,\quad\Nc=G_{mn}^\vr-G_{0n}^\vr,\quad\Ec=G_{mn}^\vr-G_{m0}^\vr,\quad\Sc=G_{m0}^\vr-G_{00}^\vr.

1498: \]

1499: As $\Nc$ and $\Ec$ are independent by Lemma \ref{lm:NE}, we have

1500: \be

1501: \ba

1502: \Vv(G^\vr_{mn})&=\Vv(\Wc+\Nc)\\

1503: &=\Vv(\Wc)+\Vv(\Nc)+2\Cov(\Sc+\Ec-\Nc,\,\Nc)\\

1504: &=\Vv(\Wc)-\Vv(\Nc)+2\Cov(\Sc,\,\Nc).

1505: \ea\label{eq:varg}

1506: \ee

1507: We now modify the $\om$-values in $\Sc$. Let $\la=\vr+\ve$ and

1508: apply \eqref{eq:cou}, without changing the other values

1509:  $\{\om_{ij}: i\geq 0,j\geq1\}$.  Quantities of the altered last-passage

1510:  model will be marked with a superscript $\ve$. In

1511: this new process, $\Sc^\ve$ has a Gamma$(m,\,1-\vr-\ve)$ distribution with density

1512: \[

1513: f_\ve(s)=\frac{(1-\vr-\ve)^m\cdot\e{-(1-\vr-\ve)s}\cdot s^{m-1}}{(m-1)!}

1514: \]

1515: for $s>0$, whose $\ve$-derivative is

1516: \be

1517: \pt_\ve f_\ve(s)=sf_\ve(s)-\frac{m}{1-\vr-\ve}\cdot f_\ve(s).\label{eq:fe}

1518: \ee

1519: Given the sum $\Sc^\ve$, the joint distribution of $\{\om_{i0}\}_{1\leq i\leq m}$ is independent of the parameter $\ve$, hence the quantity $\Ev(\Nc^\ve\,|\,\Sc^\ve=s)=\Ev(\Nc\,|\,\Sc=s)$ does not depend on $\ve$. Therefore, using \eqref{eq:fe} we have

1520: \be

1521: \begin{split}

1522: \pt_\ve\Ev(\Nc^\ve)\Bigr|_{\ve=0}&=\pt_\ve\int_0^\infty\Ev(\Nc\,|\,\Sc=s)f_\ve(s)\,\di s\Bigr|_{\ve=0}\\

1523: &=\int_0^\infty\Ev(\Nc\,|\,\Sc=s)\cdot s\cdot f_0(s)\,\di s-\frac{m}{1-\vr}\int_0^\infty\Ev(\Nc\,|\,\Sc=s)f_0(s)\,\di s\\

1524: &=\Ev(\Nc\Sc)-\frac{m}{1-\vr}\cdot\Ev(\Nc)=\Cov(\Nc,\,\Sc).\label{eq:dcov}

1525: \end{split}

1526: \ee

1527: Next we compute the same quantity by a different approach. Let $Z$ and $Z^\ve$ be the exit points of the maximal paths to $(m,\,n)$ in the original and the modified processes, respectively. Similarly, $U_x$ and $U^\ve_x$ are the weights as defined by \eqref{eq:udef} for the two processes. Hence $U_Z$ is the weight collected on the $i$ or $j$ axis by the maximal path of the original process. Then

1528: \[

1529: \ba

1530: \Nc^\ve-\Nc&=(\Nc^\ve-\Nc)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve=Z\}+(\Nc^\ve-\Nc)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}\\

1531: &=(U_Z^\ve-U_Z)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve=Z\}+(\Nc^\ve-\Nc)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}\\

1532: &=(U_Z^\ve-U_Z)+(\Nc^\ve-\Nc-U_Z^\ve+U_Z)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}.

1533: \ea

1534: \]

1535: As $\om$ values are only changed on the $i$-axis, the first term is rewritten as

1536: \[

1537: U_Z^\ve-U_Z=U_{Z^+}^\ve-U_{Z^+}=\left(\frac{1-\vr}{1-\vr-\ve}-1\right)U_{Z^+}=\frac{\ve}{1-\vr-\ve}\cdot U_{Z^+}

1538: \]

1539: by \eqref{eq:cou}. We show that the expectation

1540: of the second term is $\mathfrak o(\ve)$.   Note that the

1541: increase $\Nc^\ve-\Nc$ is bounded by $\Sc^\ve-\Sc$. Hence

1542: \be

1543: \begin{split}

1544: &\Ev[(\Nc^\ve-\Nc-U_Z^\ve+U_Z)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}]\\

1545: &\qquad \leq\Ev[(\Nc^\ve-\Nc)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}]

1546: \;\leq\;\Ev[(\Sc^\ve-\Sc)\cdot{\bf1}\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}]\\

1547: &\qquad \leq\bigl(\Ev[(\Sc^\ve-\Sc)^2]\bigr)^\frac12\cdot

1548: \bigl(\Pv\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}\bigr)^\frac12.

1549: \end{split}\label{eq:err}

1550: \ee

1551: To show that the probability is of the order of $\ve$, notice that the exit point of the maximal path can only differ in the modified process from the one of the original process, if for some $Z<k\leq m$, $U^\ve_k+A_k>U^\ve_Z+A_Z$ with $Z$ of the original process (see \eqref{eq:adef} for the definition of $A_i$). Therefore,

1552: \[

1553: \ba

1554: \Pv\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}&=\Pv\{U^\ve_k+A_k>U^\ve_Z+A_Z\text{ for some }Z<k\leq m\}\\

1555: &=\Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_Z>A_Z-A_k\text{ for some }Z<k\leq m\}\\

1556: &=\Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_Z>A_Z-A_k\geq U_k-U_Z\text{ for some }Z<k\leq m\}\\

1557: &\leq\Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_i>A_i-A_k\geq U_k-U_i\text{ for some }0\leq i<k\leq m\}\\

1558: &\leq\sum_{0\leq i<k\leq m}\Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_i>A_i-A_k\geq U_k-U_i\}.

1559: \ea

1560: \]

1561: We also used the definition of $Z$ in the third equality, via $A_Z+U_Z\geq A_k+U_k$. Notice that $A$'s and $U$'s are independent for fixed indices. Hence with $\mu$ denoting the distribution of $A_i-A_k$, we write

1562: \begin{multline*}

1563: \Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_i>A_i-A_k\geq U_k-U_i\}\\

1564: \ba

1565: &=\int\Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_i>x\geq U_k-U_i\}\di\mu(x)\\

1566: &\leq\sup_x\Pv\{U^\ve_k-U^\ve_i>x\geq U_k-U_i\}\\

1567: &=\sup_x\Pv\Bigl\{\frac{1-\vr}{1-\vr-\ve}\cdot(U_k-U_i)>x\geq U_k-U_i\Bigr\}\\

1568: &=\sup_x\Pv\Bigl\{x\geq U_k-U_i>x\Bigl(1-\frac{\ve}{1-\vr}\Bigr)\Bigr\}.

1569: \ea

1570: \end{multline*}

1571: Since $U_k-U_i$ has a Gamma distribution, the supremum above is $\mathcal O(\ve)$, which shows the bound on $\Pv\{Z^\ve\neq Z\}$. The first factor on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:err},

1572: \[

1573: \bigl(\Ev[(\Sc^\ve-\Sc)^2]\bigr)^{1/2}

1574: =\frac{\ve}{1-\vr-\ve}\cdot\bigl(\Ev[\Sc^2]\bigr)^{1/2},

1575: \]

1576: is of order $\ve$.

1577: Hence the error term \eqref{eq:err} is $\mathfrak o(\ve)$, and we conclude

1578: \[

1579: \pt_\ve\Ev(\Nc^\ve)\Bigr|_{\ve=0}=\frac{1}{1-\vr}\cdot\Ev(U_{Z^+}).

1580: \]

1581: The proof of the first statement is then completed by this display, \eqref{eq:varg} and \eqref{eq:dcov}, as $\Wc$ and $\Nc$ are Gamma-distributed by Lemma \ref{lm:NE}. The second statement follows in a similar way, using $\Cov(\Wc,\,\Ec)$.

1582: \end{proof}

1583: 

1584: \begin{lm}\label{lm:vvlr}

1585: Let $0<\vr\leq\la<1$. Then

1586: \[

1587: \Vv(G_{mn}^\la)\leq\frac{\vr^2}{\la^2}\cdot\Vv(G^\vr_{mn})+m\cdot\left(\frac{1}{(1-\la)^2}-\frac{\vr^2}{\la^2(1-\vr)^2}\right).

1588: \]

1589: \end{lm}

1590: \begin{proof}

1591: The proof is based on the coupling described by \eqref{eq:cou}, and a similar one $\om_{0j}^\la=\frac\vr\la\cdot\om_{0j}^\vr$ on the $j$ axis. Note that in this coupling, when changing from $\vr$ to $\la$, we are increasing the weights on the $i$-axis and decreasing the weights on the $j$-axis, which clearly implies $Z^\vr\leq Z^\la$. Also, we remain in the stationary situation, so \eqref{eq:ns} remains valid for $\la$. As $U_{-x^-}^\vr$ is non-increasing in $x$, this implies

1592: \[

1593: U^\la_{-Z^{\la-}}=\frac\vr\la\cdot U^\vr_{-Z^{\la-}}\leq\frac\vr\la\cdot U^\vr_{-Z^{\vr-}}.

1594: \]

1595: We substitute this into the second line of \eqref{eq:ns} to get

1596: \[

1597: \ba

1598: \Vv(G^\la_{mn})&=\frac{m}{(1-\la)^2}-\frac{n}{\la^2}+\frac{2}{\la}\cdot\Ev(U_{-Z^{\la-}}^\la)\\

1599: &\leq\frac{m}{(1-\la)^2}-\frac{n}{\la^2}+\frac{2\vr}{\la^2}\cdot\Ev(U_{-Z^{\vr-}}^\vr)\\

1600: &=\frac{\vr^2}{\la^2}\cdot\left(\frac{m}{(1-\vr)^2}-\frac{n}{\vr^2}+\frac{2}{\vr}\cdot\Ev(U_{-Z^{\vr-}}^\vr)\right)\\

1601: &\qquad+m\cdot\left(\frac{1}{(1-\la)^2}-\frac{\vr^2}{\la^2(1-\vr)^2}\right)\\

1602: &=\frac{\vr^2}{\la^2}\cdot\Vv(G^\vr_{mn})+m\cdot\left(\frac{1}{(1-\la)^2}-\frac{\vr^2}{\la^2(1-\vr)^2}\right).

1603: \ea

1604: \]

1605: \end{proof}

1606: 

1607: %%\hop

1608: %%{\bf Behavior on the characteristics.}

1609: 

1610: \section{Upper bound}

1611: \label{sc:ub}

1612: 

1613: We turn  to proving the upper bounds in Theorems \ref{tm:G-var-1} and \ref{tm:Z-1}.

1614: We have a fixed  density

1615: $\vr\in(0,1)$, and to study the last-passage times $G^\vr$

1616:  along the  characteristic,

1617: we define the

1618: dimensions of the last-passage rectangle as

1619: \be

1620: m(t)=\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\qquad\text{and}\qquad n(t)=\fl{\vr^2t}\label{eq:mndef}

1621: \ee

1622: with a parameter $t\to\infty$.

1623: The quantities $A_x$, $Z$ and $G_{mn}$ connected to these indices

1624: are denoted by $A_x(t)$, $Z(t)$, $G(t)$.

1625: In the proofs we  need to consider different  boundary conditions

1626:  \eqref{eq:bondis}  with $\vr$ replaced by $\la$.

1627: This will be indicated by a superscript.

1628:  However,  the

1629: superscript $\la$ only changes the boundary conditions

1630: and not the dimensions  $m(t)$ and $n(t)$, always defined by

1631: \eqref{eq:mndef} with a fixed $\vr$.

1632:  Moreover,

1633: we apply the coupling \eqref{eq:cou} on the $i$-axis and $\om_{0j}^\la=\frac\vr\la\cdot\om_{0j}^\vr$ on the $j$-axis.

1634: The weights $\{\om_{ij}\}_{i,\,j\geq1}$ in the interior

1635: will not be affected by changes in boundary conditions,

1636: so in particular  $A_x(t)$ will not either. Since

1637: $G^\la(t)$ chooses the  maximal path,

1638: \[

1639: U^\la_z+A_z(t)\leq G^\la(t)

1640: \]

1641: for all $1\leq z\leq m(t)$

1642: and all densities $0<\la<1$.

1643: Consequently, for integers $u\geq0$ and densities $\la\geq\vr$,

1644: \be

1645: \ba

1646: \Pv\{Z^\vr(t)>u\}&=\Pv\{\exists z>u\,:\,U^\vr_z+A_z(t)=G^\vr(t)\}\\

1647: &\leq\Pv\{\exists z>u\,:\,U^\vr_z-U^\la_z+G^\la(t)\geq G^\vr(t)\}\\

1648: &=\Pv\{\exists z>u\,:\,U^\la_z-U^\vr_z\leq G^\la(t)-G^\vr(t)\}\\

1649: &\leq\Pv\{U^\la_u-U^\vr_u\leq G^\la(t)-G^\vr(t)\}.

1650: \ea\label{eq:pzu}

1651: \ee

1652: The last step is justified by $\la\geq\vr$ and the coupling

1653: \eqref{eq:cou}.

1654: Set

1655: \be

1656: \la_u=\frac{\vr}{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}+\vr}.\label{eq:lu}

1657: \ee

1658: This density maximizes

1659: \[

1660: \Ev(U^\la_u)-\Ev(G^\la(t))=\frac{u}{1-\la}

1661: -\frac{\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{1-\la}-\frac{\fl{\vr^2t}}{\la}

1662: \]

1663: if the integer parts are dropped. The expectation

1664: $\Ev(G^\la_{mn})$ is

1665: computed as  $\Ev(G^\la_{0n})+\Ev(G^\la_{mn}-G^\la_{0n})$

1666: with the help of Lemma \ref{lm:NE}.

1667:  Some useful identities for future computations:

1668: \be

1669: \la_u\geq\vr,\quad\frac{1}{\la_u}=1+\frac{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}{\vr},\quad\frac{1}{1-\la_u}=1+\frac{\vr}{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}.\label{eq:usef}

1670: \ee

1671: 

1672: \begin{lm}

1673: With  $0\leq u\leq (1-\vr)^2t$ and  $\la_u$ of \eqref{eq:lu},

1674: \begin{multline*}

1675: \Ev(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u-G^{\la_u}(t)+G^\vr(t))\\

1676: \geq

1677: \frac{t\vr}{1-\vr}\left((1-\vr)-\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}\,\right)^2

1678: -\frac{u/t}{\vr(1-\vr)}.

1679: \end{multline*}

1680: \end{lm}

1681: \begin{proof}

1682: By Lemma \ref{lm:NE} and \eqref{eq:mndef}

1683: \begin{align*}

1684: &\Ev(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u-G^{\la_u}(t)+G^\vr(t))\\

1685: &\quad =\frac{u}{1-\la_u}-\frac{u}{1-\vr}-\frac{\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{1-\la_u}+

1686: \frac{\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{1-\vr}-\frac{\fl{\vr^2t}}{\la_u}+

1687: \frac{\fl{\vr^2t}}{\vr}.

1688: \end{align*}

1689: First we remove the integer parts.

1690: Since $\la_u\geq\vr$,

1691: \[

1692: -\frac{\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{1-\la_u}+

1693: \frac{\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{1-\vr} \geq

1694: -\frac{(1-\vr)^2t}{1-\la_u}+

1695: \frac{(1-\vr)^2t}{1-\vr}.

1696: \]

1697: For the other integer parts

1698: \begin{align*}

1699: -\frac{\fl{\vr^2t}}{\la_u}+

1700: \frac{\fl{\vr^2t}}{\vr} &\geq  -\frac{\vr^2t}{\la_u}+

1701: \frac{\vr^2t}{\vr}  -\frac1\vr+\frac1\la_u\\

1702: &=-\frac{\vr^2t}{\la_u}+

1703: \frac{\vr^2t}{\vr}-\,\frac{1-\vr-\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-u/t}}{\vr}\\

1704: &\geq -\frac{\vr^2t}{\la_u}+

1705: \frac{\vr^2t}{\vr} -\frac{u/t}{\vr(1-\vr)}

1706: \end{align*}

1707: The last term above

1708: is  the last term of the bound in the statement of the lemma.

1709: It remains to check that after  the integer parts have been

1710: removed from the mean, the remaining quantity  equals the main

1711:  term of the bound.

1712: \begin{multline*}

1713: \frac{u}{1-\la_u}-\frac{u}{1-\vr}-\frac{(1-\vr)^2t}{1-\la_u}+\frac{(1-\vr)^2t}{1-\vr}-\frac{\vr^2t}{\la_u}+\frac{\vr^2t}{\vr}\\

1714: \ba

1715: %&=[u-(1-\vr)^2t]\cdot\left[\frac{1}{1-\la_u}-\frac{1}{1-\vr}\right]-\vr^2t\cdot\left[\frac{1}{\la_u}-\frac{1}{\vr}\right]\\

1716: &=[u-(1-\vr)^2t]\cdot\left[1+\frac{\vr}{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}-\frac{1}{1-\vr}\right]\\

1717: &\qquad-\vr^2t\cdot\left[1+\frac{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}{\vr}-\frac{1}{\vr}\right]\\

1718: %&=t[(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}]\cdot\left[\frac{\vr}{1-\vr}-\frac{\vr}{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}\right]\\

1719: %&\qquad+\vr^2t\cdot\left[\frac{1-\vr}{\vr}-\frac{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}{\vr}\right]\\

1720: %&=t\cdot\frac{\vr}{1-\vr}\cdot\left[\left((1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}\right)-2(1-\vr)\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}+(1-\vr)^2\right]\\

1721: &=t\cdot\frac{\vr}{1-\vr}\left((1-\vr)-\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}\right)^2.

1722: \ea

1723: \end{multline*}

1724: \end{proof}

1725: 

1726: \begin{lm}\label{lm:middle}

1727: For any $8\vr^{-2}(1-\vr)^2\leq u\leq(1-\vr)^2t$,

1728: \[

1729: \Ev(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u-G^{\la_u}(t)+G^\vr(t))\geq

1730: \frac{\vr}{8(1-\vr)^3}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t}.

1731: \]

1732: \end{lm}

1733: \begin{proof}

1734: Assumption $u\geq 8\vr^{-2}(1-\vr)^2$ implies that the last term

1735: of the bound from the previous lemma satisfies

1736: \[

1737: -\,\frac{u/t}{\vr(1-\vr)}\geq -\,\frac{\vr}{8(1-\vr)^3}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t}.

1738: \]

1739: Thus it remains to prove

1740: \[

1741: \left((1-\vr)-\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}\,\right)^2\geq\frac{1}{4(1-\vr)^2}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t^2}.

1742: \]

1743: This is easy to check in the form

1744: \[

1745: %\ba

1746: \left(C-\sqrt{C^2-x}\right)^2%&

1747: \geq\frac{1}{4C^2}\cdot x^2%\\

1748: ,

1749: %C-\frac{1}{2C}\cdot x&\geq\sqrt{C^2-x}\\

1750: %C^2-x+\frac{1}{4C^2}\cdot x^2&\geq C^2-x\\

1751: %\frac{1}{4C^2}&\geq0,

1752: %\ea

1753: \]

1754: where  $x=u/t$, $C=1-\vr$ and then $x\leq C^2$.

1755: \end{proof}

1756: 

1757: \begin{lm}\label{lm:vg}

1758: For any $0\leq u\leq\frac34(1-\vr)^2t$,

1759: \[

1760: \Vv(G^{\la_u}(t)-G^\vr(t))\leq\frac{8}{1-\vr}\cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})+

1761: \frac{8(u+1)}{(1-\vr)^2}

1762: \]

1763: \end{lm}

1764: \begin{proof}

1765: We start with substituting \eqref{eq:mndef} into Lemma \ref{lm:vvlr}

1766: (integer parts can  be dropped without violating the inequality):

1767: \[

1768: \Vv(G^{\la_u}(t))\leq\frac{\vr^2}{\la_u^2}\cdot\Vv(G^\vr(t))+t\cdot\left(\frac{(1-\vr)^2}{(1-\la_u)^2}-\frac{\vr^2}{\la_u^2}\right).

1769: \]

1770: Utilizing  \eqref{eq:usef},

1771: %\begin{multline*}

1772: \[

1773: \frac{(1-\vr)^2}{(1-\la_u)^2}-\frac{\vr^2}{\la_u^2}%\\

1774: %\ba

1775: %&=\frac{\left(\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}+\vr\right)^2}{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}\cdot(1-\vr)^2-\frac{\left(\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}+\vr\right)^2}{\vr^2}\cdot\vr^2\\

1776: %&

1777: =\left(\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}+\vr\right)^2\cdot\frac{{u}/{t}}{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}.

1778: %\ea

1779: \]

1780: %\end{multline*}

1781: Since the expression in parentheses is not larger than 1,

1782: ${u}/{t}\leq\frac34(1-\vr)^2$, and $\vr\leq\la_u$, it follows that

1783: \[

1784: \Vv(G^{\la_u}(t))\leq\Vv(G^\vr(t))+\frac{4}{(1-\vr)^2}\cdot u.

1785: \]

1786: Then we proceed with Lemma \ref{lm:ns} and \eqref{eq:mndef}:

1787: \begin{align*}

1788: &\Vv(G^{\la_u}(t)-G^\vr(t))\leq2\Vv(G^{\la_u}(t))+2\Vv(G^{\vr}(t))\\

1789: &\qquad \leq4\Vv(G^{\vr}(t))+\frac{8}{(1-\vr)^2}\cdot u\\

1790: &\qquad =\frac{8}{1-\vr}\cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})+4\frac{\fl{\vr^2t}}{\vr^2}

1791: -4\frac{\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}}{(1-\vr)^2}

1792: +\frac{8}{(1-\vr)^2}\cdot u\\

1793: &\qquad\leq\frac{8}{1-\vr}\cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})+\frac{8(u+1)}{(1-\vr)^2}

1794:  \qedhere

1795: \end{align*}

1796: \end{proof}

1797: 

1798: \begin{lm}\label{lm:vu}

1799: With the application of the coupling \eqref{eq:cou}, for any $0\leq u\leq\frac34(1-\vr)^2t$  %% (see \eqref{eq:mndef}),

1800: we have

1801: \[

1802: \Vv(U_u^{\la_u}-U_u^\vr)\leq u\cdot\frac{\vr^2}{(1-\vr)^2}.

1803: \]

1804: \end{lm}

1805: \begin{proof}

1806: By that coupling,

1807: \[

1808: \Vv[U_u^{\la_u}-U_u^\vr]=\Vv\left[\left(\frac{1-\vr}{1-\la_u}-1\right)U_u^\vr\right]=u\cdot\left(\frac{1-\vr}{1-\la_u}-1\right)^2\cdot\frac{1}{(1-\vr)^2},

1809: \]

1810: as $U^\vr_u$ is the sum of $u$ many independent $\Expd$$(1-\vr)$ weights.

1811: Write

1812: \[

1813: \ba

1814: \left(\frac{1-\vr}{1-\la_u}-1\right)\cdot\frac{1}{(1-\vr)}&=\frac{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}+\vr}{\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2-{u}/{t}}}-\frac{1}{(1-\vr)}\\

1815: &\leq\frac{\frac12(1+\vr)}{\frac12(1-\vr)}-\frac{1}{(1-\vr)}=\frac{\vr}{1-\vr}.

1816: \ea

1817: \]

1818: \end{proof}

1819: 

1820: \noindent

1821: After these preparations, we continue the main argument from \eqref{eq:pzu}.

1822: \begin{lm}\label{lm:zbou}

1823: There exists a constant $C_1=C_1(\vr)$ such that

1824: for any $u\geq\linebreak[4]8\vr^{-2}(1-\vr)^2$ and $t>0$,

1825: \[

1826: \Pv\{Z^\vr(t)>u\}\leq C_1\Bigl( \frac{t^2}{u^4}\cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})

1827: +\frac{t^2}{u^3}\Bigr).

1828: %\Pv\{Z^\vr(t)>u\}\les \frac{(1-\vr)^5}{\vr^2}\cdot\frac{t^2}{u^4}\cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})+\frac{(1+\vr^2)(1-\vr)^4}{\vr^2}\cdot\frac{t^2}{u^3}

1829: \]

1830: %where $\les$ means that there is a factor of the right-hand side, not depending on any of the variables, with which the inequality holds.

1831: \end{lm}

1832: \begin{proof}

1833: If $8\vr^{-2}(1-\vr)^2\leq u\leq(1-\vr)^2t$, then continuing

1834: from \eqref{eq:pzu} and taking Lemma \ref{lm:middle} into account, we write

1835: \[

1836: \ba

1837: \Pv\{Z^\vr(t)>u\}

1838: %&\leq\Pv\biggl\{U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u\leq\Ev(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u)-\frac{\vr}{16(1-\vr)^3}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t}\biggr\}\\

1839: %&\quad+\Pv\biggl\{G^{\la_u}(t)-G^\vr(t)\geq\Ev(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u)-

1840: %\frac{\vr}{16(1-\vr)^3}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t}\biggr\}\\

1841: &\leq\Pv\biggl\{U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u\leq\Ev(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u)-

1842: \frac{\vr}{16(1-\vr)^3}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t}\biggr\}\\

1843: &\ +\Pv\biggl\{G^{\la_u}(t)-G^\vr(t)\geq\Ev(G^{\la_u}(t)-G^\vr(t))+

1844: \frac{\vr}{16(1-\vr)^3}\cdot\frac{u^2}{t}\biggr\}\\

1845: &\leq\Vv(U^{\la_u}_u-U^\vr_u)\cdot\frac{16^2(1-\vr)^6}{\vr^2}\cdot\frac{t^2}{u^4}\\

1846: &\ +\Vv(G^{\la_u}(t)-G^\vr(t))\cdot\frac{16^2(1-\vr)^6}{\vr^2}\cdot\frac{t^2}{u^4}

1847: \ea

1848: \]

1849: by Chebyshev's inequality.  If

1850: $8\vr^{-2}(1-\vr)^2\leq u\leq\frac34(1-\vr)^2t$,

1851: use Lemmas \ref{lm:vu} and \ref{lm:vg} to conclude

1852: \begin{align*}

1853: \Pv\{Z^\vr(t)>u\}&\leq 16^2(1-\vr)^4\cdot\frac{t^2}{u^3}

1854: +8\cdot 16^2\cdot\frac{(1-\vr)^5}{\vr^2}\cdot\frac{t^2}{u^4}

1855: \cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})\\

1856: &+8\cdot 16^2\cdot\frac{(1-\vr)^4}{\vr^2}\cdot\frac{t^2(u+1)}{u^4}.

1857: \end{align*}

1858: When $\frac34(1-\vr)^2t<u\leq(1-\vr)^2t$, the previous display

1859:  works for $\frac34u$. Hence by

1860: \[

1861: \Pv\{Z^\vr(t)>u\}\leq\Pv\{Z^\vr(t)> 3u/4\},

1862: \]

1863: the statement still holds, modified by a  factor of a  power of $4/3$.

1864: 

1865: Finally, the probability is trivially zero if $u>(1-\vr)^2t$.

1866: \end{proof}

1867: 

1868: \hop

1869: Fix a number $0<\al<1$, and define

1870: \be

1871: y=\frac{u}{\al(1-\vr)}.\label{eq:uy}

1872: \ee

1873: 

1874: \begin{lm}\label{lm:ld}

1875: We have the following large deviations estimate:

1876: \[

1877: \Pv\{U^\vr_u>y\}\leq\e{-(1-\vr)(1-\sqrt\al)^2y}.

1878: \]

1879: \end{lm}

1880: \begin{proof}

1881: We use the fact that $U^\vr_u=\sum\limits_{i=1}^u\om_{i0}$, where the $\om$'s are iid.\ $\Expd$$(1-\vr)$ variables. Fix $s$ with $1-\vr>s>0$. By the Markov inequality, we write

1882: \[

1883: \ba

1884: \Pv\{U^\vr_u>y\}&=\Pv\{\e{sU^\vr_u}>\e{sy}\}\leq\e{-sy}\Ev(\e{sU^\vr_u})

1885: =\e{-sy}\cdot\Bigl(\frac{1-\vr}{1-\vr-s}\Bigr)^u\\

1886: &\leq\exp\Bigl(-sy+u\cdot\frac{s}{1-\vr-s}\Bigr).

1887: \ea

1888: \]

1889: Substituting $u=\al(1-\vr)y$, the choice $s=(1-\vr)(1-\sqrt\al)$ minimizes the exponent, and yields the result.

1890: \end{proof}

1891: 

1892: \begin{lm}

1893: There exist finite

1894: positive constants  $C_2=C_2(\al, \vr)$ and  $C_3=C_3(\al, \vr)$

1895:  such that, for all

1896: \[

1897: r\geq\frac{8(1-\vr)}{\al\vr^2 \Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})}\,,

1898: \]

1899: we have the bound

1900: \begin{multline*}

1901: \Pv\{U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+}>r\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})\}\\

1902: \leq \frac{C_2t^2}{[\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})]^3}\cdot

1903: \left(\frac{1}{r^3}+\frac{1}{r^4}\right)

1904: +\exp\{-C_3 r\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})\}.

1905: %\Pv\{U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+}>c\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})\}\\

1906: %\les\frac{t^2}{[\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})]^3}\cdot\frac{1-\vr}{\al^3\vr^2}\cdot\left(\frac{1+\vr^2}{c^3}+\frac{1}{\al c^4}\right)+\e{-c(1-\vr)(1-\sqrt\al)^2\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})}.

1907: \end{multline*}

1908: \end{lm}

1909: \begin{proof}

1910: By  \eqref{eq:uy} and  Lemmas

1911: \ref{lm:zbou} and \ref{lm:ld},  for

1912: any $ y\geq 8\al^{-1}\vr^{-2}(1-\vr)$, and with an appropriately

1913: defined new constant,

1914: \begin{align*}

1915: \Pv\{U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+}>y\}&\leq\Pv\{Z^\vr(t)^+>u\}+\Pv\{U^\vr_u>y\}\\

1916: &\leq

1917: C_2 \Bigl(\,

1918: \frac{t^2}{y^4}\cdot\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})+\frac{t^2}{y^3}\Bigr)

1919: +\e{-(1-\vr)(1-\sqrt\al)^2y}.

1920: \end{align*}

1921: Choose $y=r\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})$.

1922: \end{proof}

1923: 

1924: \begin{tm}

1925: \[

1926: \limsup_{t\to\infty}\frac{\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})}{t^{2/3}}<\infty,

1927: \quad\text{and}\quad\limsup_{t\to\infty}\frac{\Vv(G^\vr(t))}{t^{2/3}}<\infty.

1928: \]

1929: \label{tm:EUbd}\end{tm}

1930: \begin{proof}

1931: The first inequality implies the second one by Lemma \ref{lm:ns} and \eqref{eq:mndef}. To prove the first one, suppose that there exists a sequence $t_k\nearrow\infty$ such that

1932: \[

1933: \lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})}{t_k^{2/3}}=\infty.

1934: \]

1935: Then $\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})>t_k^{2/3}$ for all large $k$'s,

1936: and consequently

1937: by the above lemma

1938: %\begin{multline*}

1939: \[

1940: \Pv\{U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+}>r\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})\}\\

1941: \leq C_2 \left(\frac{1}{r^3}+\frac{1}{r^4}\right)\frac{t_k^{2}}{[\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})]^3}

1942: +\exp(-C_3 r t_k^{2/3})

1943: \]

1944: %\end{multline*}

1945: for all $r\geq C_4 t_k^{-2/3}$.

1946: This shows by dominated convergence that

1947: \[

1948: \int_0^\infty\Pv\{U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+}>r

1949: \Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})\}\di r\underset{k\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0,

1950: \]

1951: which leads to the contradiction

1952: \[

1953: 1 = \Ev\left(\frac{U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+}}{\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})}\right)\underset{k\to\infty}{\longrightarrow}0.

1954: \]

1955: \end{proof}

1956: 

1957: Combining Lemma \ref{lm:zbou} and Theorem \ref{tm:EUbd} gives

1958: a tail bound on $Z$:

1959: 

1960: \begin{cor} Given any $t_0>0$

1961: there exists a finite constant  $C_4=C_4(t_0, \vr)$

1962: such that, for all $a>0$ and $t\geq t_0$,

1963: \[

1964: \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t)\geq at^{2/3}\} \leq C_4 a^{-3}.

1965: \]

1966: \label{cor:Z-ub}

1967: \end{cor}

1968: 

1969: \section{Lower bound}

1970: \label{sc:lb}

1971: We abbreviate

1972:  $(m,n)=\bigl( \fl{(1-\vr)^2t},\fl{\vr^2t}\bigr)$

1973: throughout this section.

1974: %whenever it does not cause confusion.

1975: 

1976: 

1977: \begin{lm} Let $a,b>0$ be arbitrary positive numbers.

1978: There exist finite  constants $t_0=t_0(a,b,\vr)$

1979: and $C=C(\vr)$  such that, for all $t\geq t_0$,

1980: \[

1981: \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq z\leq \va t^{2/3}}\bigl(  U^\vr_z + A_z(t) -A_1(t)\bigr)

1982: \geq bt^{1/3} \Bigr\} \leq C\va^3 (b^{-3}+b^{-6}).

1983: \]

1984: \label{lm:lb-1}

1985: \end{lm}

1986: \begin{proof}

1987: The process

1988: $\{U^\vr_z\}$ depends on the boundary $\{\om_{i0}\}$.

1989: Pick a version\linebreak[4] $\{\om_{ij}\}_{1\leq i\leq m,1\leq j\leq n}$ of the  interior variables

1990: independent of $\{\om_{i0}\}$.

1991: If we use the reversed system

1992:  \be\{\wt\om_{ij}=\om_{m-i+1,n-j+1}\}_{1\leq i\leq m,1\leq j\leq n}

1993: \label{eq:reversal-1}

1994: \ee

1995:  to compute $A_z(m,n)$,

1996: then this coincides with $A_1(m-z+1,n)$ computed with $\{\om_{ij}\}$.

1997: Thus with this coupling (and some abuse of notation) we can

1998: replace $A_z(m,n) -A_1(m,n)$ with $A_1(m-z+1,n)-A_1(m,n)$.

1999: [Note that $A_1(m,n)$ is the same for $\om$ and $\wt\om$.]

2000: Next pick a further independent version of boundary conditions

2001: \eqref{eq:bondis}   with density $\la$. Use these and $\{\om_{ij}\}_{i,j\geq 1}$

2002: to compute the last-passage times $G^\la$, together with a

2003:  competition interface  $\vp^\la$ defined by

2004: \eqref{eq:def-vphi} and the projections $v^\la$

2005: defined by \eqref{eq:def-vn}. Then by  \eqref{eq:coup-4}, on the

2006: event $v^\la(n)\geq m$,

2007:  \[

2008: A_1(m,n)-A_1(m-z+1,n)  \geq G^\la(m,n)-G^\la(m-z+1,n).

2009: \]

2010:  Set

2011: \[

2012: V^\la_z= G^\la(m,n)

2013: -G^\la(m-z,n),

2014: \]

2015: a sum of $z$ i.i.d.\ Exp($1-\la$) variables. $V^\la$ is independent

2016: of $U^\vr$. Combining these steps we get the bound

2017: \be

2018: \begin{split}

2019: &\Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq z\leq \va t^{2/3}}\bigl(  U^\vr_z + A_z(t) -A_1(t)\bigr)

2020: \geq bt^{1/3} \Bigr\} \\

2021: &\quad \leq

2022: \Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})<\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\}

2023:  + \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq z\leq \va t^{2/3}}(  U^\vr_z -V^\la_{z-1})

2024: \geq bt^{1/3} \Bigr\}

2025: \end{split}

2026: \label{eq:lb-temp-2}

2027: \ee

2028: 

2029:   Introduce a parameter $r>0$ whose value

2030: will be specified later, and define \be

2031: \la=\vr-rt^{-1/3}.\label{eq:def-temp-la} \ee

2032: For the second probability on the right-hand

2033: side of \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2}, define the martingale

2034: $M_z=U^\vr_z -V^\la_{z-1}-\Ev(U^\vr_z -V^\la_{z-1})$, and note that

2035: for $z\leq \va t^{2/3}$,

2036: \begin{align*}

2037: &\Ev(U^\vr_z -V^\la_{z-1})= \frac{z}{1-\vr}-\frac{z-1}{1-\la}

2038: = \frac{zrt^{-1/3}}{(1-\vr)(1-\la)}+\frac1{1-\la} \\

2039: &\leq  \frac{r\va t^{1/3}}{(1-\vr)^2} +\frac1{1-\vr}.

2040: \end{align*}

2041: As long as

2042: \be

2043:  b> r\va(1-\vr)^{-2}+t^{-1/3}(1-\vr)^{-1},

2044: \label{eq:lb-temp-2-a}

2045: \ee

2046: we get by Doob's inequality, for any $p\geq 1$,

2047: \be

2048: \begin{split}

2049: &\Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq z\leq \va t^{2/3}}(  U^\vr_z -V^\la_{z-1})

2050: \geq bt^{1/3} \Bigr\}\\

2051: &\leq \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq z\leq \va t^{2/3}} M_z \geq  t^{1/3}\Bigl( b

2052:  - \frac{r\va}{(1-\vr)^2} - \frac{t^{-1/3}}{1-\vr}\,\Bigr)\,\Bigr\}\\

2053: &\leq \frac{C(p)  t^{-p/3}}{\bigl( b-r\va(1-\vr)^{-2}-t^{-1/3}(1-\vr)^{-1}\bigr)^p}

2054: \Ev\bigl[\,\lvert  M_{\fl{\va t^{2/3}}} \rvert^p\,\bigr]\\

2055: &\leq \frac{C(p,\vr)  \va^{p/2}}{\bigl( b-r\va(1-\vr)^{-2}-t^{-1/3}(1-\vr)^{-1}\bigr)^p}.

2056: \end{split}

2057: \label{eq:lb-temp-2-b}\ee

2058: Now choose $t_0=4^3b^{-3}(1-\vr)^{-3}$. Then for $t\geq t_0$ the above

2059: bound is dominated by

2060: \[

2061: \frac{C(p,\vr)  \va^{p/2}}

2062: {\Bigl( \frac{3b}4 - \frac{r\va}{(1-\vr)^2}\Bigr)^p}

2063: \]

2064: which becomes $C(p,\vr)\va^{3} b^{-6}  $

2065: once we choose

2066: \be r=\frac{b(1-\vr)^2}{4\va}

2067: \label{eq:def-temp-r-1}\ee

2068: and $p=6$,

2069: and change the constant $C(p,\vr)$.

2070: 

2071: For  the first probability on the right-hand

2072: side of \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2},

2073: introduce the time $s=(\vr/\la)^2t$. Then

2074: \[

2075: \Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})<\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\}=\Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\la^2s})<\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\bigr\}.

2076: \]

2077: Notice that since $\la<\vr$ here, $\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\leq\fl{(1-\la)^2s}$ and so

2078: %the first line of

2079: by redefining \eqref{eq:char-mn} and \eqref{eq:zstar} with $s$ and $\la$, we have that the event $v^\la(\fl{\la^2s})<\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}$ is equivalent to

2080: \[

2081: \ba

2082: Z^{*\la}(s)&=[\fl{(1-\la)^2s}-v^\la(\fl{\la^2s})]^+-[\fl{\la^2s}-w^\la(\fl{(1-\la)^2s})]^+\\

2083: &=\fl{(1-\la)^2s}-v^\la(\fl{\la^2s})\\

2084: &>\fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}.

2085: \ea

2086: \]

2087: By $Z^{*\la}\overset{\text{d}}{=}Z^\la$, we conclude

2088: \be

2089: \begin{split}

2090: &\Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})<\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\} \\

2091: &\qquad

2092: =\Pv\bigl\{Z^\la(s)>\fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\bigr\}.

2093: \end{split}

2094: \label{eq:vtoZ}

2095: \ee

2096: %\eqref{eq:Z-vphi} applies.

2097: %\begin{align*}

2098: %&\Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})<\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\} \\

2099: %&=\Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\la^2s})<\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\bigr\}\\

2100: %&=\Pv\bigl\{ Z^\la(s) > \fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\bigr\}.

2101: %\end{align*}

2102: Utilizing the definitions \eqref{eq:def-temp-la} and

2103:  \eqref{eq:def-temp-r-1} of $\la$ and  $r$, one can

2104: check that by  increasing $t_0=t_0(a,b,\vr)$ if necessary, one can guarantee that for

2105:  $t\geq t_0$  there exists

2106: a constant $C=C(\vr)$ such that

2107: \[

2108: \fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\geq Crs^{2/3}.

2109: \]

2110: Combining this  with Corollary \ref{cor:Z-ub} and definition

2111: \eqref{eq:def-temp-r-1} of $r$  we get the bound

2112: \[

2113: \begin{split}

2114: \Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t}) <\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\}

2115: &\leq \Pv\bigl\{ Z^\la(s) > Crs^{2/3} \bigr\} \\

2116: &\leq Cr^{-3} \leq C (\va/b)^3.

2117: \end{split}

2118: \]

2119: 

2120: Returning to \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2} to combine

2121: all the bounds, we have

2122: \[

2123: \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq z\leq \va t^{2/3}}\bigl(  U^\vr_z + A_z(t) -A_1(t)\bigr)

2124: \geq bt^{1/3} \Bigr\}

2125:  \leq  C\Bigl( \,\frac{\va^3}{b^3}+ \frac{\va^3}{b^6}\,\Bigr).

2126: \qedhere \]

2127: \end{proof}

2128: 

2129: \begin{lm}  We have the asymptotics

2130: \[

2131: \lim_{\ve\searrow 0} \limsup_{t\to\infty}

2132: \Pv\{ 0< U^\vr_{Z^{\vr}(t)^+} \leq \ve t^{2/3} \} =0.

2133: \]

2134: \label{lm:lb-2}

2135: \end{lm}

2136: 

2137: Note that part of the event is the requirement $Z^\vr(t)>0$.

2138: 

2139: \begin{proof}

2140: The limit comes from control over the point $Z^\vr(t)$. First

2141: write

2142: \begin{align*}

2143: \Pv\{ 0< U^\vr_{Z^{\vr}(t)^+} \leq \ve t^{2/3} \}

2144: \leq \Pv\{ 0<Z^\vr(t)\leq \delta t^{2/3}\}

2145: + \Pv\{ U^\vr_{\tfl{\delta t^{2/3}}}\leq \ve t^{2/3} \}.

2146: \end{align*}

2147: Given $\delta>0$, the last probability vanishes as $t\to\infty$

2148: for any $\ve< \delta(1-\vr)^{-1}$. Thus it remains to show that

2149: the first probability on the right can be made  arbitrarily small

2150: for large $t$, by choosing a small enough $\delta$.

2151: 

2152: Let $0<\delta,b<1$.

2153: \begin{align}

2154: &\Pv\{ 0<Z^\vr(t)\leq \delta t^{2/3}\} \nn\\

2155: &\leq \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{x>\delta t^{2/3}}\bigl( U^\vr_x+A_x(t)\bigr) <

2156: \sup_{1\leq x\leq \delta t^{2/3}}\bigl( U^\vr_x+A_x(t)\bigr) \Bigr\}\nn\\

2157: &\leq \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{x>\delta t^{2/3}}

2158: \bigl( U^\vr_x+A_x(t)-A_1(t)\bigr) < bt^{1/3}\Bigr\}\label{eq:prob-temp-4}\\

2159: &\qquad +\;

2160: \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{1\leq x\leq \delta t^{2/3}}

2161: \bigl( U^\vr_x+A_x(t)-A_1(t)\bigr) >  bt^{1/3}\Bigr\}.

2162: \label{eq:prob-temp-5}

2163: \end{align}

2164: 

2165: By Lemma \ref{lm:lb-1}

2166:  the probability \eqref{eq:prob-temp-5} is bounded

2167: by $C\delta^3(b^{-3}+b^{-6})$.

2168: Bound the probability \eqref{eq:prob-temp-4} by

2169: \begin{align}

2170: &\Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{\delta t^{2/3}<x\leq t^{2/3}}

2171: \bigl( U^\vr_x+A_x(t)-A_1(t)\bigr) < bt^{1/3}\Bigr\}\nn\\

2172: &\quad \leq

2173: \Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})> \fl{(1-\vr)^2t}-t^{2/3}\bigr\}

2174: \label{eq:prob-temp-6}\\

2175: &\qquad  + \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{\delta t^{2/3}<x\leq t^{2/3}}

2176: (  U^\vr_x -V^\la_{x})

2177: < bt^{1/3} \Bigr\} \label{eq:prob-temp-7}

2178: \end{align}

2179: where, following the example of

2180:  the previous proof, we have introduced a new density,

2181: this time

2182: \[

2183: \la=\vr+rt^{-1/3},

2184: \]

2185: and then used the reversal trick

2186: of equation \eqref{eq:reversal-1} and Lemma \ref{lm:coup-3}

2187: to deduce

2188: \[

2189: A_x(m,n)-A_1(m,n)\geq G^\la(m-x+1,n)-G^\la(m,n)\equiv -V^\la_{x-1}

2190: \geq -V^\la_x,

2191: \]

2192: whenever $v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})\leq \fl{(1-\vr)^2t}-t^{2/3}$. We claim that, given $\eta>0$ and parameter  $r$ from above,

2193: we can fix  $\delta, b>0$  small

2194: enough so that, for some $t_0<\infty$,  the probability in

2195: \eqref{eq:prob-temp-7} satisfies

2196: \be

2197: \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{\delta t^{2/3}<x\leq t^{2/3}}

2198: (  U^\vr_x -V^\la_{x})

2199: < bt^{1/3} \Bigr\} \leq \eta

2200: \qquad\text{for all $t\geq t_0$.}

2201: \label{eq:lb-temp-11}

2202: \ee

2203: As $t\to\infty$,

2204: \begin{align*}

2205: &t^{-1/3} \Ev(U^\vr_{\fl{yt^{2/3}}} -V^\la_{\fl{yt^{2/3}}})

2206: \longrightarrow \frac{-ry}{(1-\vr)^2}\\

2207: &\quad\quad\text{and}\quad

2208: t^{-2/3}\Vv(U^\vr_{\fl{yt^{2/3}}} -V^\la_{\fl{yt^{2/3}}})

2209: \longrightarrow \frac{2y}{(1-\vr)^2}\equiv\sigma^2(\vr)y

2210: \end{align*}

2211: uniformly over $y\in[\delta, 1]$. Since we have a sum of

2212: i.i.d's,

2213: the probability in \eqref{eq:lb-temp-11} converges, as $t\to\infty$, to

2214: \[

2215: \Pv\Bigl\{ \,\sup_{\delta \leq y\leq 1}\Bigl(

2216: \sigma(\vr) B(y)-\frac{ry}{(1-\vr)^{2}}\Bigr)

2217: \leq  b \Bigr\}

2218: \]

2219: where $B(\cdot)$ is standard Brownian motion. The random variable

2220: \[ \sup_{0\leq y\leq 1}\Bigl(

2221: \sigma(\vr) B(y)-\frac{ry}{(1-\vr)^{2}}\Bigr)

2222: \]

2223: is positive almost surely, so the above probability is less

2224: than $\eta/2$ for small $\delta$ and $b$. This implies

2225: \eqref{eq:lb-temp-11}.

2226: 

2227: The probability in \eqref{eq:prob-temp-6}

2228: is bounded by

2229: \begin{align*}

2230: &\Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\tfl{\vr^2t})>\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t-t^{2/3}-1}\bigr\}\\

2231: &\leq  \Pv\bigl\{ v^{1-\la}(\tfl{(1-\vr)^2t-t^{2/3}-1})<\tfl{\vr^2t}\bigr\}\\

2232: &\leq \Pv\bigl\{ v^{1-\la}(\tfl{(1-\la)^2s})<\tfl{\la^2s}- qs^{2/3}\bigr\}\\

2233: &=\Pv\bigl\{ Z^{*1-\la}(s)>  qs^{2/3}\bigr\}\\

2234: &=\Pv\bigl\{ Z^{1-\la}(s)>  qs^{2/3}\bigr\}\\

2235: &\leq Cq^{-3}.

2236: \end{align*}

2237: Above we first used  \eqref{eq:v-w-ineq} and

2238:  transposition of the array $\{\om_{ij}\}$. Because this exchanges

2239: the axes, density $\la$ becomes $1-\la$.

2240:  Then we defined

2241: $s$  by

2242: \[

2243: (1-\la)^2s= (1-\vr)^2t-t^{2/3}-1

2244: \]

2245: and observed that for large enough $t$, the second inequality

2246: holds for some $q=

2247: C(\vr)((1-\vr)r-\vr )$. We used \eqref{eq:zstar} and the distributional identity of $Z$ and $Z^*$ thereafter. The last inequality is

2248: from Corollary \ref{cor:Z-ub}.

2249: 

2250: Now given $\eta>0$, choose $r$ large enough so that

2251: $Cq^{-3}<\eta$.  Given this $r$, choose $\delta, b$ small enough so

2252: that \eqref{eq:lb-temp-11} holds.  Finally, shrink $\delta$ further

2253: so that $C\delta^3(b^{-3}+b^{-6})<\eta$ (shrinking $\delta$ does not

2254: violate \eqref{eq:lb-temp-11}).

2255: To summarize, we have shown that, given $\eta>0$,

2256: if $\delta$ is small enough, then for all large  $t$

2257: \be

2258: \Pv\{1\leq  Z^\vr(t)\leq \delta t^{2/3}\}\leq 3\eta.

2259: \label{eq:b-proof}

2260: \ee

2261: This concludes the proof of the lemma.

2262: \end{proof}

2263: 

2264: Via transpositions we get the previous lemma also for the j-axis:

2265: 

2266: \begin{cor}   We have the asymptotics

2267: \[

2268: \lim_{\ve\searrow 0} \limsup_{t\to\infty}

2269: \Pv\{ 0< U^\vr_{-Z^{\vr}(t)^-} \leq \ve t^{2/3} \} =0.

2270: \]

2271: \label{cor:lb-3}

2272: \end{cor}

2273: \begin{proof} Let  $\{\om_{ij}\}$ be an initial assignment

2274: with density $\vr$. Let $\wt\om_{ij}=\om_{ji}$ be the

2275: transposed array,

2276: which is an initial assignment with density $1-\vr$.

2277: Under transposition the

2278: $\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\times\fl{\vr^2 t}$ rectangle has become

2279: $\fl{\vr^2 t}\times\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}$, the correct characteristic

2280: dimensions for density $1-\vr$.  Since  transposition exchanges

2281: the coordinate axes, after transposition

2282: $U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+}$ has become $U^{1-\vr}_{-Z^{1-\vr}(t)^-}$,

2283: and so these two random variables

2284: have the same distribution. The corollary is now

2285: a consequence of Lemma \ref{lm:lb-2} because this lemma is valid

2286: for each density $0<\vr<1$.

2287: \end{proof}

2288: 

2289: \eqref{eq:b-proof} proves part (b) of Theorem \ref{tm:Z-1}.

2290: The theorem below gives the lower bound for Theorem \ref{tm:G-var-1}

2291: and thereby completes its proof.

2292: 

2293: \begin{tm}

2294: \[

2295: \liminf_{t\to\infty}\frac{\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t)^+})}{t^{2/3}}>0,

2296: \quad\text{and}\quad\liminf_{t\to\infty}\frac{\Vv(G^\vr(t))}{t^{2/3}}>0.

2297: \]

2298: \end{tm}

2299: \begin{proof}

2300: Suppose

2301: there exists a density $\vr$ and a sequence $t_k\to\infty$ such that

2302: $t_k^{-2/3}\Vv(G^\vr(t_k))\to 0$.  Then by Lemma \ref{lm:ns}

2303: \[

2304: \frac{\Ev(U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+})}{t_k^{2/3}}\to 0

2305: \quad\text{and}\quad

2306: \frac{\Ev(U^\vr_{-Z^\vr(t_k)^-})}{t_k^{2/3}}\to 0.

2307: \]

2308: From this and Markov's inequality

2309: \[

2310: \Pv\{ U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+} >\ve t_k^{2/3}\}\to 0

2311: \quad\text{and}\quad

2312: \Pv\{ U^\vr_{-Z^\vr(t_k)^-} >\ve t_k^{2/3}\}\to 0

2313: \]

2314: for every $\ve>0$. This together with Lemma \ref{lm:lb-2}

2315: and Corollary \ref{cor:lb-3} implies

2316: \[

2317: \Pv\{ U^\vr_{Z^\vr(t_k)^+} > 0\}\to 0

2318: \quad\text{and}\quad

2319: \Pv\{ U^\vr_{-Z^\vr(t_k)^-} > 0\}\to 0.

2320: \]

2321: But these statements imply that

2322: \[

2323: \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t_k) > 0\}\to 0

2324: \quad\text{and}\quad

2325: \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t_k) < 0\}\to 0,

2326: \]

2327: which is  a contradiction since these two probabilities

2328: add up to 1 for each fixed $t_k$.

2329: This proves the second claim of the theorem.

2330: 

2331: The first claim follows because it is equivalent to the second.

2332: \end{proof}

2333: 

2334: \section{Rarefaction boundary conditions}

2335: \label{sc:gen-bd}

2336: In this section we prove results on the longitudinal and transversal fluctuations of a maximal path under more general

2337: boundary conditions.

2338: %% that correspond to the case where a rarefaction fan appears,

2339: %%see e.g.\ \cite{serf}.

2340: Abbreviate as before

2341: \[ (m,n) = \bigl( \fl{(1-\vr)^2t},\fl{\vr^2t}\bigr).\]

2342: We start by studying $A_0(t)=A_0(m,n)$, the maximal path to $(m,n)$ when there are no weights on the axes. We still use the boundary conditions \eqref{eq:bondis}, so that we have coupled $A_0(t)$ and $G^\vr(t)$.

2343: We prove another version

2344: of  Lemma \ref{lm:lb-1} to make it applicable for all $t\ge 1$.

2345: \begin{lm}\label{lem:A0}

2346: Fix $0<\al <1$. There exists a constant $C=C(\al, \vr)$

2347:  such that, for each $t\ge 1$ and $b\ge C$,

2348: \[ \Pv\{G^\vr(t) - A_0(t)\geq bt^{1/3}\} \leq Cb^{-3\al/2}.\]

2349: \end{lm}

2350: \begin{proof}

2351: Note that

2352: \be

2353: \ba

2354: \Pv\{G^\vr(t) - A_0(t)\geq bt^{1/3}\}

2355: \leq & \ \Pv\{\sup_{|z|\leq at^{2/3}} U^\vr_z(t) + A_z(t) - A_0(t)\geq bt^{1/3}\}\\

2356: & + \Pv\{\sup_{|z|\leq at^{2/3}} U^\vr_z(t) + A_z(t)\neq G^\vr(t)\}.

2357: \label{eq:splitAG}

2358: \ea

2359: \ee

2360: The last term of \eqref{eq:splitAG} can easily be dealt with using

2361: Corollary \ref{cor:Z-ub}: there exists a $C=C(\vr)$ such that

2362: \be

2363: \ba

2364: &\Pv\{\sup_{|z|\leq at^{2/3}} U^\vr_z(t) + A_z(t)\neq G^\vr(t)\}

2365: \leq  \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t)\geq at^{2/3}\} \\

2366: &\qquad  + \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t)\leq -at^{2/3}\}  \leq Ca^{-3}. \label{eq:ubneq}

2367: \ea

2368: \ee

2369: For the first term of \eqref{eq:splitAG} we will use the results from the proof of Lemma \ref{lm:lb-1}. We split the range of $z$ into $[1,at^{2/3}]$ and $[-1,-at^{2/3}]$ and consider for now only the first part. Define

2370: \[ \la = \vr - rt^{-1/3}.\]

2371: We can use \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2} and \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2-b},

2372: where we choose $a=b^{\al/2}$, $p=2$,  and $r=b^{\al/2}$.

2373: Choose $C=C(\al, \vr)>0$ large enough so that

2374: for $b\ge C$

2375: \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2-a} is satisfied and the denominator

2376: of the last bound in \eqref{eq:lb-temp-2-b} is at least

2377: $b/2$. Then we can claim that, for all $b\ge C$ and $t\ge 1$,

2378: \be

2379: \ba

2380: &\Pv\{\sup_{1\leq z\leq at^{2/3}} U^\vr_z(t) + A_z(t) - A_0(t)

2381: \geq bt^{1/3}\} \\

2382: & \qquad \leq \Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})<\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\}

2383:  + Cb^{\al/2-2}.

2384: \ea

2385: \label{eq:sec7-temp-5}

2386: \ee

2387: From \eqref{eq:vtoZ} we get with $s=(\vr/\la)^2t$

2388: \[

2389: \Pv\bigl\{ v^\la(\fl{\vr^2t})<\fl{(1-\vr)^2t}\bigr\}=\Pv\bigl\{Z^\la(s)>\fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\bigr\}.

2390: \]

2391: Now we continue differently  than in Lemma

2392: \ref{lm:lb-1} so that $t$ is not forced to be large.

2393: An elementary calculation yields

2394: \[

2395: \fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\geq

2396: 2\,\frac{1-\vr}{\vr}\,rs^{2/3} + \frac{2\vr-1}{\vr^2}\,r^2s^{1/3}-1.

2397: \]

2398: We want to write down conditions

2399: under which  the right-hand side above is at least

2400: $\delta rs^{2/3}$ for some constant $\delta$ and all

2401: $s\ge 1$.  First increase the above constant $C=C(\al, \vr)$

2402: so that if $b=r^{2/\al}\ge C$, then

2403: \[

2404: \frac{1-\vr}{\vr}\,rs^{2/3} -1 \ge \frac{1-\vr}{2\vr}\,rs^{2/3}

2405: \qquad\text{ for all $s\ge 1$. }

2406: \]

2407: Then choose $\eta=\eta(\al,\vr)>0$ small enough such that

2408: %for all $C\le b\leq \eta t^{2/(3\al)}$

2409: whenever $b\in[C,\,\eta t^{2/(3\al)}]$

2410: %(this implies that 

2411: (in this case $r$ is small enough compared to $t^{1/3}$, but notice that the interval might as well be empty when $t$ is small),

2412: \[

2413: \frac{1-\vr}{\vr}\,rs^{2/3} \ge -\,\frac{2\vr-1}{\vr^2}\,r^2s^{1/3}.

2414: \]

2415: This last condition is vacuously true if $\vr\ge 1/2$.

2416: 

2417: Now we have for $C\le b\leq \eta t^{2/(3\al)}$ and with

2418: $\delta=(1-\vr)/(2\vr)$,

2419: \[ \fl{(1-\la)^2s}-\fl{\la^2(1-\vr)^2\vr^{-2}s}\geq \delta rs^{2/3}

2420: \qquad\text{ for all $s\ge 1$. }

2421: \]

2422: If we combine this with \eqref{eq:sec7-temp-5} and

2423:  Corollary \ref{cor:Z-ub},

2424: we can state that for all $C\le b\le \eta t^{2/(3\al)}$

2425: and $t\ge 1$,

2426: \[

2427: \Pv\{\sup_{1\leq z\leq at^{2/3}} U^\vr_z(t) + A_z(t) - A_0(t)

2428: \geq bt^{1/3}\}  \le Cb^{-3\al /2}

2429:  + Cb^{\al/2-2}.

2430: \]

2431: Same argument works (or just apply transposition)

2432:  for the values $-at^{2/3}\le z\le 1$,

2433: so this same upper bound is valid for the first probability

2434: on the right-hand side of \eqref{eq:splitAG}.

2435: 

2436: Taking \eqref{eq:ubneq} also into consideration,

2437:  at this point we have shown

2438: that whenever $C\le b\le \eta t^{2/(3\al)}$ and $t\ge 1$,

2439: \[ \Pv\{G^\vr(t) - A_0(t)\geq bt^{1/3}\} \leq \frac12C(b^{\al/2-2} +

2440: b^{-3\al /2})\leq Cb^{-3\al /2}.\]

2441: 

2442: What if $b\geq \eta t^{2/(3\al)}$? Note that

2443: \[ \Pv\{G^\vr(t) - A_0(t)\geq bt^{1/3}\} \leq \Pv\{G^\vr(t) \geq

2444: bt^{1/3}\}.\]

2445: Since $G^\vr(t)$ is the sum of two (dependent) random variables,

2446: each of which in turn is the sum of i.i.d. exponentials, and since

2447: \[

2448: \Ev(G^\vr(t)b^{-1}t^{-1/3}) \leq C(\vr, \eta )b^{\al -1}

2449: \]

2450: ($\Ev(G^\vr(t))$ is basically linear in $t$ by \eqref{eq:char-mn} and Lemma \ref{lm:NE}),

2451: we conclude that $\Pv\{G^\vr(t) - A_0(t)\geq bt^{1/3}\}$ goes to

2452: zero faster than any polynomial in $b$, if $b\geq \eta t^{2/(3\al)}$.

2453: This proves the lemma for all $b\ge C$.

2454: \end{proof}

2455: 

2456: Now we can establish that the

2457:  fluctuations of $A_0(t)$ are of order $t^{1/3}$.

2458: 

2459: \begin{cor}\label{cor:At}

2460: Fix $0<\al <1$. There exists a constant $C=C(\al, \vr)$ such

2461: that for all $a>0$ and $t\ge 1$,

2462: \[ \Pv \{ |A_0(t)-t| > at^{1/3}\} \leq Ca^{-3\al/2}.\]

2463: In particular this means that

2464: \[ \Ev(|A_0(t) - t|) = O(t^{1/3})\quad\text{and}\quad \Ev(A_0(t))=t -

2465: O(t^{1/3}).\]

2466: \end{cor}

2467: \begin{proof}

2468: Lemma \ref{lem:A0} together with Theorem \ref{tm:EUbd} implies for

2469: $a\ge C(\al,\vr)$

2470: \[

2471: \ba

2472: \Pv \{ |A_0(t)-t| > at^{1/3}\} &\leq \Pv\{G^\vr(t)-A_0(t)> at^{1/3}/2\}\\

2473: & \ \ \  + \Pv \{ |G^\vr(t)-t| > at^{1/3}/2\}\\

2474: & \leq C_1a^{-3\al/2} + C_2a^{-2}\\

2475: & \leq Ca^{-3\al/2}.

2476: \ea

2477: \]

2478: Finally, we can always increase $C$ in order to take all $0<a\leq

2479: C(\al,\vr)$ values into account.

2480: \end{proof}

2481: 

2482: 

2483: 

2484: We can also consider the fluctuations of the position of a maximal path.

2485: To this end we extend the definition of $Z(t)$, the exit point from the

2486: axes. We define $Z_l(t)$ as the $i$-coordinate of the right-most point on

2487: the horizontal line $j=l$ of the right-most maximal path to $(m,n)$ (we

2488: say right-most path, because later in this section we will consider

2489: boundary conditions that no longer necessarily have a unique longest

2490: path). We will use the notation $Z^\vr_l$ to denote the stationary

2491: situation and $Z^0_l$ to denote the situation where all the weights

2492: on the axes are zero. Note that in all cases

2493: \[ Z(t)^+ = Z_0(t).\]

2494: \begin{lm}

2495: Define $(k,l)=(\fl{(1-\vr)^2s},\fl{\vr^2s})$ for $s\leq t$. There

2496: exists a constant $C=C(\rho)$ such that for all $s\leq t$ with

2497: $t-s\geq 1$ and all $a>0$

2498: \[ \Pv\{ Z^\vr_l(t)\geq k+a(t-s)^{2/3}\} \leq Ca^{-3}.\]

2499: \end{lm}

2500: \begin{proof}

2501: There are several ways to see this, for example using time-reversal.

2502: One can also pick a new origin at $(k,l)$, and define a

2503:   last-passage model in

2504: the rectangle $[k,m]\times[l,n]$ with  boundary conditions given

2505: by $I$- and $J$-increments of the  $G$-process in the original

2506: rectangle $[0,m]\times[0,n]$.  The maximizing path in this

2507: new model connects up with the original maximizing path.

2508:   Hence in this new model

2509:  it looks as though the maximal path to

2510: $(m-k,n-l)$ exits the $i$-axis beyond the point $a(t-s)^{2/3}$, and so

2511: \[ \Pv\{ Z^\vr_l(t)\geq k+a(t-s)^{2/3}\} = \Pv\{ Z^\vr(t-s)\geq a(t-s)^{2/3}\}.\]

2512: We have ignored the integer parts here, but this can be dealt with uniformly in $a>0$. Now we can use Corollary \ref{cor:Z-ub} to conclude that

2513: \[ \Pv\{ Z^\vr_l(t)\geq k+a(t-s)^{2/3}\} \leq Ca^{-3}.\]

2514: \end{proof}

2515: 

2516: To get a similar result for $Z^0_l(t)$ we need a more convoluted

2517: argument and the conclusion is  a little weaker.

2518: 

2519: %%We would like to have a similar result for $Z^0_l(t)$, but since we have no stationarity, we cannot use time-reversal or a new origin. The following intuitive idea should work: given that $Z^0_l(t)$ is large, one would think that the probability that $Z^\vr(t)>0$ is bigger than in the case where we would have no information. If $Z^\vr(t)>0$, then $Z^\vr_l(t)\geq Z^0_l(t)$ (since the two maximal paths can coalesce, but not cross), which would give the desired bound for the probability, using the previous Lemma. However, we were not able to make this argument stick, so we had to use a more convoluted argument.

2520: \begin{lm}\label{lem:Z0sm}

2521: Define $(k,l)=(\fl{(1-\vr)^2s},\fl{\vr^2s})$ for $s\leq t$. There exists a constant $C=C(\al, \vr)$ such that for all $a>0$ and $t\geq 1$

2522: \[ \Pv\{ Z^0_l(t)> k+a\,t^{2/3}\} \leq Ca^{-3\al }.\]

2523: \end{lm}

2524: \begin{proof}

2525: The event $\{Z^0_l(t)> k+u\}$ is equivalent to the event

2526: \[ E=\left\{A_0(t) = \sup_{z\geq u}\{ A_0(k+z+1,l) + \tilde{A}_0(z-u,0)\}\right\}.\]

2527: Here, $A_0(i,j)$ is the weight of the maximal path (not using the axes) from $(0,0)$ to $(i,j)$, including the endpoint, whereas $\tilde{A}_0(i,j)$ is the weight of the maximal path from $(k+u+i,l+j)$ to $(m,n)$, including the endpoint but excluding the starting point {\em and excluding all the weights directly to the right or directly above $(k+u+i,l+j)$}. This corresponds to choosing $(k+u+i,l+j)$ as a new origin, and making sure that the axes through this origin have no weights. Note that the processes $A_0(\cdot,l)$ and $\tilde{A}_0(\cdot,0)$ are independent. The idea is to

2528: bound $A_0$ and $\tilde{A}_0$ by appropriate stationary processes

2529:  $G^\la$ and $G^{\tilde{\la}}$ to show that,

2530:  with high probability, this supremum will be too small if $u$ is too

2531: large.   We can couple the processes $G^\la$ and $G^{\tilde{\la}}$, where $\tilde{\la}>\la$, in the following way: $G^\la$ induces weights on the horizontal line $j=l$ through the increments of $G^\la$, see Lemma \ref{lm:NE}. The process $G^{\tilde{\la}}$ takes the point

2532: $(k+u,l)$ as origin and uses as boundary weights

2533: on the horizontal line $j=l$, with a slight abuse of

2534: notation, for $i\geq 1$

2535: \[ \tilde{\om}_{i0} = \frac{1-\la}{1-\tilde{\la}} I_{k+u+i+1,l}= \frac{1-\la}{1-\tilde{\la}}(G^\la(k+u+i+1,l)-G^\la(k+u+i,l)).\]

2536: These weights are independent $\Expd(1-\tilde{\la})$ random variables. The weights $\tilde{\om}_{0j}\sim

2537: \Expd(\tilde{\la})$ on the line $i=k+u$ can be chosen

2538: independently of everything else, whereas for $i,j\geq 1$

2539: \[ \tilde{\om}_{ij} = \om_{u+k+i,l+j}.\]

2540: So $G^{\tilde{\la}}(i,j)$ equals the weight of the maximal path

2541: from $(k+u,l)$ to $(k+u+i,l+j)$, using as weights on the

2542: points $(k+u+i,l)$ the $\tilde{\om}_{i0}$ (for $i\geq 1$), on the

2543: points $(k+u,l+j)$ the $\tilde{\om}_{0j}$ (for $j\geq 1$) and on

2544: the points $(k+u+i,l+j)$ the original $\om_{k+u+i,l+j}$

2545: (for $i,j\geq 1$). This construction leads to

2546: \[ A_0(i,j)\leq G^\la(i,j)\quad \text{and}\quad

2547: \tilde{A}_0(i,j)\leq G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l) - G^{\tilde{\la}}(i,j).\]

2548: Also, for all $0\leq i\leq m-k-u-1$,

2549: \[ G^\la(k+u+i+1,l)-G^\la(k+u+1,l)\leq G^{\tilde{\la}}(i,0).\]

2550: Therefore, for all $0\leq i\leq m-k-u-1$,

2551: \[

2552: \ba

2553: A_0(k+u+i+1,l) + \tilde{A}_0(i,0) &\leq G^\la(k+u+i+1,l)- G^{\tilde{\la}}(i,0) + \\

2554: &\ \ \ \ G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l) \\

2555: &\leq G^\la(k+u+1,l) + G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l).

2556: \ea

2557: \]

2558: So we get

2559: \be

2560: \label{eq:boundPE}

2561: \Pv (E) \leq \Pv\{ A_0(t) - G^\la(k+u+1,l) -

2562: G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l)\leq 0\}.

2563: \ee

2564: Here, we can still choose $\la$ and $\tilde{\la}$ as long as $0<\la <\tilde{\la}$, but it is not hard to see that for the optimal choices (in expectation) of $\la$ and $\tilde\la$ are determined by

2565: \be

2566: \frac{(1-\la)^2}{\la^2}=\frac{k+u+1}{l}\quad\text{and}\quad\frac{(1-\tilde\la)^2}{\tilde\la^2}=\frac{m-k-u}{n-l}.\label{eq:optchar}

2567: \ee

2568: With these choices we get

2569: \[ \Ev(G^\la(k+u+1,l)) = (\sqrt{k+u+1} + \sqrt{l})^2\]

2570: and

2571: \[ \Ev(G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l)) = (\sqrt{m-k-u}+\sqrt{n-l})^2.\]

2572: This particular choice of $(\la, \tilde{\la})$ is valid (i.e., $\tilde{\la}>\la$) as soon as $u\geq C(\vr)$. Smaller $u$ can be dealt with by increasing $C$ in the statement of lemma. We have for $u\geq 2$

2573: \[ 

2574: \ba

2575: \Ev(G^\la(k+&u+1,l) + G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l)) =  m+n+2\sqrt{l(k+u+1)}\\

2576: &  \hspace{5cm} +2\sqrt{(n-l)(m-k-u)}+1\\

2577: & \leq  ((1-\vr)^2+\vr^2)t + 1 + 2\sqrt{\vr^2s}\,\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2s+u} + \sqrt{\frac{l}{k+u}}\\

2578: & \hspace{2.5cm} + 2\sqrt{\vr^2(t-s)+1}\,\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2(t-s)-u+1}\\

2579: & \leq  ((1-\vr)^2+\vr^2)t + C(\vr) + 2\sqrt{\vr^2s}\,\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2s+u}\\

2580: & \hspace{2cm} + 2\sqrt{\vr^2(t-s)}\,\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2(t-s)-(u-1)}\\

2581: & \leq t + C(\vr) + \frac{\vr}{1-\vr}u - \frac{\vr}{1-\vr}(u-1) - \frac14\, \frac{\vr}{(1-\vr)^3}\, \frac{(u-1)^2}{t-s}\\

2582: & \leq t - C_1(\vr)\,\frac{u^2}{t} + C_2(\vr).

2583: \ea

2584: \]

2585: If $u=\fl{at^{2/3}}$, then we can choose constants $M=M(\vr)$ and $C_1=C(\vr)$ such that for all $a>M$ and $t\geq 1$,

2586: \be \label{eq:EGla}

2587: \Ev(G^\la(k+u+1,l) + G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l)) \leq t - C_1 a^2t^{1/3}.

2588: \ee

2589: Smaller $a$ can be dealt with by increasing the constant $C$ in the statement of the lemma. Now note that, using (\ref{eq:boundPE}), we get 

2590: \[

2591: \ba

2592: \Pv(E) &\leq  \Pv\{ A_0(t) - t\leq G^\la(k+u+1,l) + G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l) - t\}\\

2593: &\leq  \Pv( A_0(t)-t \leq -\frac12C_1a^2t^{1/3}) \\

2594: & \ \ \    + \Pv( G^\la(k+u+1,l) + G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l) - t\geq -\frac12 C_1a^2t^{1/3})\\

2595: &\leq  \Pv( A_0(t)-t \leq -\frac12 C_1a^2t^{1/3}) + C_2a^{-4} \leq Ca^{-3\al}.

2596: \ea

2597: \]

2598: For the last line we used (\ref{eq:EGla}), the fact that

2599: \[ \Vv(G^\la(k+u+1,l) + G^{\tilde{\la}}(m-k-u,n-l))\leq Ct^{2/3},\]

2600: (notice that the choice \eqref{eq:optchar} places these coordinates in the $G$'s on the respective characteristics, see \eqref{eq:char-mn}), and Corollary \ref{cor:At}.

2601: 

2602: \end{proof}

2603: 

2604: We now turn to the case of a rarefaction fan introduced by \eqref{eq:rareom}.

2605: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{tm:rare}]

2606: The statement follows from the trivial observation that

2607: \[ A_0(t)\leq \hat{G}(t) \leq G^{\rho}(t)\]

2608: (if there is less weight, the paths get shorter), Corollary \ref{cor:At} and Theorem \ref{tm:EUbd}.

2609: \end{proof}

2610: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{tm:raretrans}]

2611: For the first inequality, we introduce the process $G^{\Wc=0}$, which uses the same weights as $G^\rho$, except on the $j$-axis, where all weights are 0 (so $\om^{\Wc=0}_{0j}=0$). It is not hard to see that

2612: \[ \hat{Z}_l(t) \leq Z^{\Wc=0}_l(t),\]

2613: simply because the right-most maximal path for $G^{\Wc=0}$ stays at least as long on the $i$-axis as a maximal path for $\hat{G}$, and it can coalesce with, but never cross a maximal path for $\hat{G}$. So we get

2614: \[ \Pv\{ \hat{Z}_l(t)\geq k+at^{2/3}\} \leq \Pv\{ Z^{\Wc=0}_l(t)\geq k+at^{2/3}\}.\]

2615: First we will show that with high probability, $Z^{\Wc=0}_0(t)$ is not too large. This will imply that if $Z^{\Wc=0}_l(t)$ is large, it must be because $Z^0_l(\tilde{t})$ (for an appropriately chosen $\tilde{t}$) is large, which has low probability because of Lemma \ref{lem:Z0sm}.

2616: 

2617: Note that, as in the proof of the previous lemma,

2618: \be\label{eq:ZW>u}

2619: \{ Z^{\Wc=0}_0(t)> u\} = \{ G^{\Wc=0}(t) = \sup_{z>u} (U^\vr_z + A_z(t))\}.

2620: \ee

2621: Now define a stationary process $G^\la$, with $\la > \vr$, whose origin is placed at $(u,0)$. It uses as weights on the $i$-axis

2622: \[ \om^\la_{i0} = \frac{1-\vr}{1-\la}\om_{u+i+1,0}.\]

2623: On the line $i=u$, $G^\la$ uses independent $\Expd({\la})$ weights. This construction guarantees that for $i\geq 0$

2624: \[ U^\vr_{u+i+1} - U^\vr_{u+1} \leq G^\la(i,0).\]

2625: Also, for $z>u$,

2626: \[ A_z(t) \leq G^\la(m-u,n)-G^\la(z-u-1,0).\]

2627: This implies that

2628: \[ \sup_{z>u} (U^\vr_z + A_z(t))\leq U^\vr_{u+1} + G^\la(m-u,n).\]

2629: This means that, using (\ref{eq:ZW>u}),

2630: \be\label{eq:ZWsubset}

2631: \{ Z^{\Wc=0}_0(t)> u\} \subset \{ G^{\Wc=0}(t) \leq  U^\vr_{u+1} + G^\la(m-u,n)\}.

2632: \ee

2633: Again we have that for the optimal $\la$,

2634: \[ \Ev(G^\la(m-u,n)) = (\sqrt{m-u}+\sqrt{n})^2,\]

2635: which leads to

2636: \[ 

2637: \ba

2638: \Ev(U^\vr_{u+1} &+ G^\la(m-u,n)) \leq \frac{u+1}{1-\vr} + m + n - u + 2\sqrt{n}\,\sqrt{m-u}\\

2639: & \leq (1-\vr)^2t + \vr^2 t +\frac{\vr u}{1-\vr} + C_1(\vr) + 2\sqrt{\vr^2t}\,\sqrt{(1-\vr)^2t-(u-1)}\\

2640: & \leq t + C_2(\vr) -\frac14\, \frac{\vr}{(1-\vr)^3}\,\frac{(u-1)^2}{t}.

2641: \ea

2642: \]

2643: Just as in the proof Lemma \ref{lem:Z0sm}, we see that if $u=\fl{bt^{2/3}}$, we can choose constants $M=M(\vr)$ and $C_1=C_1(\vr)$ such that for all $b>M$ and $t\geq 1$,

2644: \[ \Ev(U^\vr_{u+1} + G^\la(m-u,n)) \leq t - C_1b^2t^{1/3}.\]

2645: Note that with (\ref{eq:ZWsubset})

2646: \[

2647: \ba

2648: \Pv( Z^{\Wc=0}_0(t)> bt^{2/3}) & \leq \Pv (G^{\Wc=0}(t) -t \leq -\frac12 C_1 b^2t^{1/3})\\

2649: & \ \ \ + \Pv ( U^\vr_{u+1} + G^\la(m-u,n) -t \geq -\frac12 C_1 b^2t^{1/3}).

2650: \ea

2651: \]

2652: Now we can use the fact that

2653: \[ \Vv(U^\vr_{u+1} + G^\la(m-u,n)) = O(u+t^{2/3})\]

2654: (again, the optimal choice for $\la$ has placed the coordinates in $G$ on the characteristics w.r.t.\ $\la$),

2655: and Theorem \ref{tm:rare} to conclude that for $b>M$

2656: \[ \Pv \{Z^{\Wc=0}_0(t)> bt^{2/3}\}\leq Cb^{-3\al}.\]

2657: For $b\leq M$ we can increase $C$.

2658: 

2659: A little picture reveals that if $Z^{\Wc=0}_l(t)\geq k+at^{2/3}$ and $Z^{\Wc=0}_0(t)\leq at^{2/3}/2$, then the maximal path that does not use the weights on the axes from the point $(at^{2/3}/2,0)$ to $(m,n)$, must pass to the right of $(k+at^{2/3},l)$, an event with smaller probability than the event $\{ Z^0_l(t)\geq k + at^{2/3}/2\}$, which with Lemma \ref{lem:Z0sm} proves the first inequality.

2660: 

2661: The second inequality of the Theorem is a corollary of the first. We assume $k-at^{2/3}\ge0$, otherwise this statement is trivial. Also, we prove for $a>2\frac{(1-\vr)^2}{\vr^2}$, one can always increase $C$ if this is not the case. Fix $\wt s$ such that

2662: \[

2663: k-at^{2/3}=(1-\vr)^2\wt s,\quad\text{then}\quad k':\,=\fl{(1-\vr)^2\wt s},\qquad l':\,=\fl{\vr^2\wt s}.

2664: \]

2665: With these definitions,

2666: \[

2667: l\ge l'+\vr^2s-1-\frac{\vr^2}{(1-\vr)^2}\cdot(1-\vr)^2\wt s\ge l'+\frac{\vr^2}{(1-\vr)^2}\cdot at^{2/3}-1.

2668: \]

2669: Define also $\hat{Y}^T_{k'}$ to be the highest point of the left-most maximal path on the vertical line $i=k'$. As the left-most maximal path is North-East, we have

2670: \[

2671: \Pv\{\hat{Y}_l(t)\le k-at^{2/3}\}=\Pv\{\hat{Y}^T_{k'}\ge l\}\le\Pv\{\hat{Y}^T_{k'}\ge l'+\frac{\vr^2}{(1-\vr)^2}\cdot at^{2/3}-1\}.

2672: \]

2673: Pick $\wt a=a\vr^2/(1-\vr)^2-1>1$, then the right hand-side is bounded by $\Pv\{\hat{Y}^T_{k'}\ge l'+\wt at^{2/3}\}$. The transposed array $\wt\om_{ij}:\,=\om_{ji}$, $i,\,j\ge0$ has rarefaction fan boundary conditions w.r.t.\ the parameter $1-\vr$. Moreover, $\hat{Y}^T_{k'}$ becomes the right-most point of the right-most maximal path on the horizontal line $i=k'$ in the transpose picture. The first part of the Theorem with $1-\vr$, $\wt s\le t$ and $\wt a$ then completes the proof by $\wt a^{-3\al}<[\frac12(\wt a+1)]^{-3\al}=C'(\vr,\,\al)\cdot a^{-3\al}$.

2674: \end{proof}

2675: \bibliography{refsmarton}

2676: \bibliographystyle{plain}

2677: 

2678: \bigskip

2679: {\sc M.\ Bal\'azs, Mathematics Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison,} Van Vleck Hall, 480 Lincoln Dr, Madison WI 53706-1388, USA.\\

2680: \indent

2681: {\it E-mail address:} {\tt balazs@math.wisc.edu}

2682: 

2683: \bigskip

2684: {\sc E. Cator, Delft University of Technology, faculty EWI,} Mekelweg 4, 2628CD, Delft, The Netherlands.\\

2685: \indent

2686: {\it E-mail address:} {\tt e.a.cator@ewi.tudelft.nl}

2687: 

2688: \bigskip

2689: {\sc T.\ Sepp\"al\"ainen, Mathematics Department, University of Wis\-con\-sin-Madison,} Van Vleck Hall, 480 Lincoln Dr, Madison WI 53706-1388, USA.\\

2690: \indent

2691: {\it E-mail address:} {\tt seppalai@math.wisc.edu}

2692: 

2693: \end{document}

2694: