1: \documentclass[10pt]{article}

2: 

3: \usepackage{amsfonts}

4: \usepackage{amsxtra}

5: \usepackage{amsmath}

6: \usepackage{a4}

7: \usepackage{amssymb}

8: \usepackage{theorem}

9: \usepackage{epsfig}

10: \oddsidemargin=10mm

11: \textwidth=142mm

12: \topmargin=0mm

13: \textheight=220mm

14: 

15: \renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.2}

16: 

17: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

18: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}

19: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}

20: {\theorembodyfont{\rmfamily}\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}}

21: {\theorembodyfont{\rmfamily}\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}}

22: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}

23: \numberwithin{theorem}{section}

24: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

25: \numberwithin{figure}{section}

26: 

27: \newcommand{\given}{\big\vert}

28: 

29: \newcommand{\Bin}{\text{Bin}}

30: \newcommand{\Ber}{\text{Ber}}

31: 

32: \newcommand{\intersect}{\cap}

33: 

34: \newcommand{\bu}{\mathbf{u}}

35: \newcommand{\by}{\mathbf{y}}

36: \newcommand{\bv}{\mathbf{v}}

37: 

38: \newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}}

39: \newcommand{\PP}{\mathbb{P}}

40: \newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathbb{Z}}

41: \newcommand{\NN}{\mathbb{N}}

42: \newcommand{\EE}{\mathbb{E}\,}

43: \newcommand{\CC}{\mathbb{C}}

44: 

45: \newcommand{\cC}{\mathcal{C}}

46: \newcommand{\cL}{\mathcal{L}}

47: \newcommand{\cB}{\mathcal{B}}

48: \newcommand{\cS}{\mathcal{S}}

49: \newcommand{\cT}{\mathcal{T}}

50: 

51: \renewcommand{\Box}{\square}

52: \newcommand{\ty}{{\tilde{y}}}

53: 

54: 

55: \newcommand{\tC}{{\tilde{C}}}

56: \newcommand{\tu}{{\tilde{u}}}

57: \newcommand{\tA}{{\tilde{A}}}

58: \newcommand{\tT}{{\tilde{T}}}

59: \newcommand{\tM}{{\tilde{M}}}

60: \newcommand{\tY}{{\tilde{Y}}}

61: \newcommand{\tV}{{\tilde{V}}}

62: \newcommand{\tS}{{\tilde{S}}}

63: \newcommand{\tX}{{\tilde{X}}}

64: 

65: \newcommand{\Ubar}{{\bar{U}}}

66: 

67: \newcommand{\bone}{\boldsymbol{1}}

68: 

69: \newcommand{\toi}{\rightarrow \infty}

70: \newcommand{\psis}{F_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}}}

71: \newcommand{\bfx}{{\bf x}}

72: \newcommand{\ep}{{\epsilon}}

73: \newcommand{\bsl}{\backslash}

74: \newcommand{\bx}{\mathbf{x}}

75: \newcommand{\bfi}{{\bf i}}

76: \newcommand{\bfj}{{\bf j}}

77: \newcommand{\bfu}{{\bf u}}

78: \newcommand{\bfv}{{\bf v}}

79: \newcommand{\bl}{{\bf L}}

80: \newcommand{\bpi}{{\bf \pi}}

81: \newcommand{\ba}{{\bf a}}

82: \newcommand{\adn}{a_{\Delta_{\nu}}}

83: \newcommand{\be}{\mbox{$\mathbb{E}$}}

84: \newcommand{\bp}{\mbox{$\mathbb{P}$}}

85: \newcommand{\ce}{\mbox{$\cal E$}}

86: \newcommand{\cf}{\mbox{$\cal F$}}

87: \newcommand{\cdd}{\mbox{${\cal D}_0$}}

88: \newcommand{\tce}{\tilde {\mbox{$\cal E$}}}

89: \newcommand{\tcf}{\tilde {\mbox{$\cal F$}}}

90: \newcommand{\hce}{\hat {\mbox{$\cal E$}}}

91: \newcommand{\hcf}{\hat {\mbox{$\cal F$}}}

92: \newcommand{\tm}{\tilde{m}}

93: \newcommand{\taf}[1][\partial F]{\tau_{#1}}

94: \newcommand{\tF}{\tilde{F}}

95: \newcommand{\tB}{\tilde{B}}

96: \newcommand{\tphi}{\tilde{\phi}}

97: \newcommand{\tE}{\tilde{E}}

98: \newcommand{\hf}{{\hat F}}

99: \newcommand{\hc}{{\hat{c}}}

100: \newcommand{\hmu}{\hat {\mu}}

101: \newcommand{\cd}{\mbox{$\cal D$}}

102: \newcommand{\cc}{\mbox{$\cal C$}}

103: \newcommand{\hcfi}{\mbox{$\hat{\cal F}_{\infty}$}}

104: \newcommand{\che}{\mbox{$\hat{\cal E}$}}

105: \newcommand{\chf}{\mbox{$\hat{\cal F}$}}

106: \newcommand{\bz}{\mbox{$\mathbb Z$}}

107: \newcommand{\br}{\mbox{$\mathbb R$}}

108: \newcommand{\bn}{\mbox{$\mathbb N$}}

109: \newcommand{\bpt}{\bar{p}_{t}}

110: \newcommand{\hK}{\hat K}

111: \newcommand{\gi}{\Gamma^{(i)}}

112: \newcommand{\gj}{\Gamma^{(j)}}

113: \newcommand{\mi}{\mu^{(i)}}

114: \newcommand{\mj}{\mu^{(j)}}

115: \newcommand{\cei}{\mbox{${\cal E}^{(i)}$}}

116: \newcommand{\cej}{\mbox{${\cal E}^{(j)}$}}

117: \newcommand{\cfi}{\mbox{${\cal F}^{(i)}$}}

118: \newcommand{\cfio}{\mbox{${\cal F}_1^{(i)}$}}

119: \newcommand{\cfj}{\mbox{${\cal F}^{(j)}$}}

120: \newcommand{\dwi}{d_w^{(i)}}

121: \newcommand{\pe}{P^x_{\epsilon}}

122: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

123: 

124: \makeatletter

125: \@addtoreset{equation}{section}

126: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

127: \makeatother

128: 

129: \def\enpf{

130:      {  \parfillskip=0pt\hfil {\hbox{$\mbox{$\Box$}$}} \par\bigskip  }

131:      }

132: 

133: \allowdisplaybreaks

134: 

135: \begin{document}

136: 

137: \title{Heavy tails in last-passage percolation}

138: \author{

139: \textbf{$\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,$Ben Hambly}

140: \hspace{1cm}

141: \textbf{James B.~Martin}\\

142: \textit{University of Oxford}

143: }

144: \date{March 21, 2006}

145: \maketitle

146: 

147: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{}

148: \footnotetext[1]{

149: $\!\!\!\!\!$

150: \textit{MSC 2000 subject classifications:} Primary 60K35; Secondary 82B41.

151: \textit{Keywords and phrases:}

152: Last-passage percolation, heavy tails, Airy process,

153: regular variation, stable process, multifractal spectrum.}

154: 

155: \begin{abstract}

156: We consider last-passage percolation models in two dimensions,

157: in which the underlying weight distribution has

158: a heavy tail of index $\alpha<2$.

159: We prove scaling laws and asymptotic distributions,

160: both for the passage times and for the shape of

161: optimal paths; these are expressed in 

162: terms of a family (indexed by $\alpha$) of 

163: ``continuous last-passage percolation'' models in the unit square.

164: In the extreme case $\alpha=0$ (corresponding to 

165: a distribution with slowly varying tail)

166: the asymptotic distribution of the optimal path 

167: can be represented by a random self-similar measure on $[0,1]$,

168: whose multifractal spectrum we compute.

169: By extending the continuous last-passage percolation 

170: model to $\RR^2$ we obtain

171: a heavy-tailed analogue of the Airy process,

172: representing the limit of appropriately scaled vectors

173: of passage times to different points in the plane. 

174: We give corresponding results for a directed

175: percolation problem based on $\alpha$-stable L\'evy processes,

176: and indicate extensions of the results to higher dimensions.

177: \end{abstract}

178: 

179: \section{Introduction}

180: Directed last-passage percolation in two dimensions has received much

181: attention in recent years. In certain specific cases, for example

182: where the weights at each site are i.i.d.\ with exponential or

183: geometric distribution, very precise scaling laws and asymptotic

184: distributions are now known, both for the passage times and for the

185: shape of optimal paths (see for example \cite{Johshape,

186: Johanssontransversal, BDMMZ}).  Such cases are closely related to the

187: longest increasing subsequence problem, and to Markovian interacting

188: particle systems such as the totally asymmetric exclusion process;

189: there are also very close links to random matrix theory, for example

190: to the behaviour of the largest eigenvalue of a large matrix drawn

191: from the Gaussian Unitary Ensemble (see for example 

192: \cite{Neilsurvey} for a survey).

193: 

194: It is believed that the behaviour proved for the exponential and

195: geometric cases should be \textit{universal}, in that the same scaling

196: laws and asymptotic distributions should occur in the last-passage

197: percolation model whose underlying weight distribution is from a much

198: more general class (certainly including any distribution with an

199: exponentially decaying tail, and maybe also those with sufficiently

200: light polynomial tails).  The growth models corresponding to these

201: last-passage percolation problems should belong to the

202: \textit{Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) universality class} (see for example

203: \cite{KrugSpohn}).  However, only very limited universality results

204: have been proved: for example, conditions under which laws of large

205: numbers for the passage times (or ``shape theorems'') hold, and

206: asymptotics for passage-times close to the boundary of the quadrant

207: \cite{JBMshape, BodineauMartin, BaiSui}.

208: 

209: In this paper, we study cases in which the tail of the weight

210: distribution is sufficiently heavy that such shape theorems fail, and

211: which certainly fall outside the universality class described

212: above. Specifically, we assume that the tail of the weight

213: distribution is regularly varying with index $\alpha<2$.  We describe

214: a family of ``continuous last-passage percolation'' models (indexed by

215: $\alpha$), and use them to provide scaling laws and asymptotic

216: distributions for the discrete models, both for the passage times and

217: for the shape of the optimal paths. Thus we have a universality

218: result for these heavy-tailed models as the only information

219: required to determine the scaling limits is the parameter $\alpha$.

220: 

221: One example of an application where such a heavy-tailed assumption is

222: very natural is in the use of last-passage models to represent

223: networks of \textit{queues in tandem}.  The vertex weights in the

224: percolation models correspond to service times in the queueing

225: systems, and passage times in the percolation models correspond 

226: to the total time spent in the queueing system by particular customers; 

227: see for example \cite{GlyWhi, BBM, blocking}.

228: 

229: In Section \ref{main}, we define the discrete last-passage 

230: percolation model

231: precisely; we then describe the continuous last-passage

232: model and state our main convergence results.  We also derive from the

233: continuous model a stationary process which can be seen as a

234: heavy-tailed analogue of the \textit{Airy process} (which was

235: developed by Pr\"ahofer and Spohn \cite{PraSpo} and Johansson

236: \cite{JohanssonAiry}), and which gives a process limit for vectors of

237: passage times to different points, appropriately scaled.

238: 

239: The proofs of the convergence results for passage-times are given in

240: Section \ref{Tsection}, and those for the optimal paths are given in

241: Section \ref{pathsection}. The results on the heavy-tailed Airy

242: process are proved in section \ref{Airysection}.

243: 

244: In Section \ref{greedysection} we explore the case where the tail of

245: the weight distribution is \textit{slowly varying} (i.e.\ $\alpha=0$).

246: It is no longer possible to provide a non-degenerate limiting

247: distribution for the passage times; however, asymptotics for the form

248: of the optimal paths are still possible, and in fact the 

249: distribution of the limiting path that 

250: arises can be described in a particularly simple and

251: algorithmic way. As the path is increasing it can be thought of

252: as the distribution of a random measure on $[0,1]$;

253: this measure is self-similar and we compute its multifractal

254: spectrum.

255: 

256: The \textit{Brownian directed percolation} model has recently been

257: much studied in various contexts (see for example \cite{GUEs,

258: GraTraWid, hmo, OcoYor}).  In Section \ref{stablesection} we discuss a

259: related model in which Brownian motion is replaced by an

260: $\alpha$-stable L\'evy process, and we again prove distributional

261: convergence to the continuous last passage percolation model.

262: 

263: The bulk of the paper concerns the case of two-dimensional

264: last-passage percolation.  However, almost all of the results extend

265: easily to $d$ dimensions, $d\geq 3$, and now apply for $\alpha<d$.  We

266: indicate these extensions in Section \ref{dsection}.

267: 

268: Simulations of trees of optimal paths, of the limiting path for

269: $\alpha=0$, and of heavy-tailed Airy processes are given in Sections

270: \ref{main},  \ref{greedysection} and \ref{Airysection}.

271: 

272: \section{Main results}\label{main}

273: \subsection{Definition of the discrete problem}

274: 

275: Let $F$ be a distribution function.

276: We will assume that the tail of the distribution $F$

277: is \textit{regularly varying} with index $\alpha\in(0,2)$; that is,

278: for all $t>0$,

279: \[

280: \frac{1-F(tx)}{1-F(x)}\to t^{-\alpha} \text{ as } x\to\infty.

281: \]

282: We will also assume (merely for convenience)

283: that $F$ is a continuous distribution and $F(0)=0$.

284: 

285: The discrete last-passage percolation model with

286: underlying weight distribution $F$ is usually defined as follows.

287: 

288: Let $X(i,j), i,j\in\NN$ be i.i.d.\ with common distribution $F$.

289: The quantity $X(i,j)$ 

290: represents the \textit{weight} at the site $(i,j)\in\ZZ_+^2$.

291: 

292: For $n\in\NN$, we will define the quantity $T^{(n)}$, the 

293: \textit {last-passage time}

294: between $(1,1)$ and $(n,n)$.  Let $\Pi_n$ be the set of

295: \textit{directed paths} between $(1,1)$ and $(n,n)$.  Each such path

296: begins at $(1,1)$ and ends at $(n,n)$, and each step consists of

297: increasing one of the two coordinates by 1.

298: That is, for any $\pi\in\Pi_n$, we can write $\pi=(v_1, v_2, \dots,

299: v_{2n})$, where $v_1=(1,1)$, $v_{2n}=(n,n)$, and, for each

300: $i=1,\dots,2n-1$, $v_{i+1}-v_i$ is either $(1,0)$ or $(0,1)$.

301: 

302: The weight of such a path is the sum of the weights $X(i,j)$

303: associated with the points $(i,j)$ in the path. Then $T^{(n)}$ is the

304: maximal weight of a directed path between $(1,1)$ and $(n,n)$; that is:

305: \begin{equation}

306: \label{Tndef1}

307: T^{(n)}=\max_{\pi\in\Pi_n} \sum_{v\in\pi} X(v).

308: \end{equation}

309: Note that $T^{(n)}$ depends only on the weights $X(v)$,

310: $v\in\{1,\dots,n\}^2$. 

311: 

312: \subsection{Continuous model}

313: 

314: We start with an alternative representation of the discrete model.

315: Let $M^{(n)}_1 \geq M^{(n)}_2 \geq \dots \geq M^{(n)}_{n^2}$ be the

316: order statistics, written in decreasing order, from an i.i.d.\ sample

317: of size $n^2$ from the distribution $F$.

318: 

319: Consider the set $\{1/n, 2/n, \dots, (n-1)/n, 1\}^2 \subset [0,1]^2$,

320: of size $n^2$.  Let the sequence $Y^{(n)}_1, \dots, Y^{(n)}_{n^2}$

321: consist of a random ordering of the points of this set, chosen

322: uniformly from the $(n^2)!$ possibilities.

323: We regard $Y^{(n)}_i$ as the location of the $i$th largest weight

324: $M^{(n)}_i$ (and we have scaled so that all points lie in the box

325: $[0,1]^2$).

326: 

327: For two points $y, y'\in[0,1]^2$, we say that $y$ and $y'$ are

328: \textit{compatible}, and write $y\sim y'$, if $y,y'$ are partially

329: ordered in that \textit{either} $y\leq

330: y'$ co-ordinatewise, \textit{or} $y'\leq y$

331: co-ordinatewise. (Informally, one of $y$ and $y'$ is below and to the

332: left of the other).

333: An increasing path will consist of a set of points such that every

334: pair of points in the set is compatible.  We describe the collection

335: of increasing paths by the collection $\cC^{(n)}$, which depends on

336: the points $Y^{(n)}_1, \dots, Y^{(n)}_{n^2}$ alone:

337: \begin{equation}

338: \label{Cndef}

339: \cC^{(n)}=

340: \cC^{(n)}(Y^{(n)}_1,\dots, Y^{(n)}_{n^2})=

341: \left\{A\subseteq\{1,\dots,n^2\}

342: \text{ such that for all } i,j\in A, 

343: Y^{(n)}_i\sim Y^{(n)}_j

344: \right\}.

345: \end{equation}

346: 

347: Now we can give a new definition for $T^{(n)}$, equivalent (in

348: distribution) to (\ref{Tndef1}):

349: \begin{equation}\label{Tndef2}

350: T^{(n)}=\max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}}\sum_{i\in A} M^{(n)}_i.

351: \end{equation}

352: 

353: We formulate the limiting continuous model by defining the

354: distribution of a random variable $T$ in an analogous way.

355: 

356: First let $Y_1, Y_2, \ldots$ be an i.i.d.\ sequence, with each $Y_i$

357: uniformly distributed on the square $[0,1]^2$.

358: Let $W_1, W_2, \ldots$ be an i.i.d.\ sequence of exponential random

359: variables with mean 1 (independent of the $(Y_i)$).  Now write, for

360: each $k\in\NN$, $M_k=(W_1+\ldots+W_k)^{-1/\alpha}$.  (Then with

361: probability 1, $M_k>M_{k+1}$ for each $k$, and $M_k\to0$ as

362: $k\to\infty$). The motivation for this definition 

363: is given by equation (\ref{Mconv}) below.

364: $M_k$ is the $k$th largest weight, which we imagine positioned

365: at the point $Y_k\in[0,1]^2$. (The set of locations $Y_k$ 

366: is of course dense in $[0,1]^2$ with probability 1).

367: 

368: Analogously to (\ref{Cndef}), we

369: represent the set of increasing paths by the collection $\cC$:

370: \begin{equation}\label{cCdef}

371: \cC=

372: \cC(Y_1, Y_2, \dots)=

373: \left\{A\subseteq\{1,2,\dots\}

374: \text{ such that for all } i,j\in A, 

375: Y_i\sim Y_j

376: \right\}.

377: \end{equation}

378: Then define 

379: \begin{equation}\label{Tdef}

380: T=\sup_{A\in\cC}\sum_{i\in A} M_i.

381: \end{equation}

382: 

383: \noindent\textit{Remark:} 

384: Note that one could equivalently define $T$ in (\ref{Tdef}) 

385: as the sup of the weight of \textit{finite} increasing paths $A$,

386: since either the sup is finite in which case 

387: the weight of any infinite path can be arbitrarily closely

388: approximated by that of a finite path, or the sup is infinite 

389: in which case one can find a finite path with an arbitrarily large

390: weight. In particular

391: $T$ can be seen as the supremum of a countable family of measurable

392: random variables, and so is itself measurable. 

393: In Section \ref{Airysection} an equivalent construction 

394: of the continuous last-passage problem 

395: is given using a Poisson random measure approach 

396: rather than the sequence of i.i.d.\ uniform positions 

397: in the unit square described above.

398: 

399: \subsection{Convergence results}

400: First note that for all $k$,

401: \[ \left( Y^{(n)}_1, Y^{(n)}_2,\dots Y^{(n)}_k \right) \to

402: \left(Y_1, Y_2,\dots,Y_k\right) \]

403: in distribution, as $n\to\infty$.

404: 

405: Now define $a_N=F^{(-1)}\left(1-\frac{1}{N}\right)$.  

406: (As an example,

407: if the weight distribution $F$ is Pareto($\alpha$), with

408: $F(x)=1-x^{-\alpha}$, then $a_{N}=N^{1/\alpha}$.  In general,

409: $\lim_{N\to\infty} \log a_{N}/\log N=1/\alpha$).

410: 

411: Recall that $M^{(n)}_k$ is 

412: the $k$th largest value from a sample of size $n^2$ 

413: from the distribution $F$.

414: We write $\tM^{(n)}_i=a_{n^2}^{-1} M^{(n)}_i$.

415: Then from classical extreme value theory we have that, for all $k$,

416: \begin{equation}\label{Mconv}

417:  \left( \tM^{(n)}_1, \tM^{(n)}_2,\dots \tM^{(n)}_k \right)

418: \to \left(M_1, M_2,\dots,M_k\right) 

419: \end{equation}

420: in distribution, as $n\to\infty$

421: (see for example Section 9.4 of \cite{Davidbook}).

422: 

423: In particular, $M^{(n)}_i$ is asymptotically of the order of

424: $a_{n^2}$, for any $i$.  

425: (For example, for the Pareto distribution $F(x)=1-x^{-\alpha}$

426: mentioned above, we have

427: $a_{n^2}=n^{2/\alpha}$).

428: Since certainly $T^{(n)}\geq M^{(n)}_1$, we

429: have that $T^{(n)}$ grows asymptotically at least on the order of

430: $a_{n^2}$. In fact, we will show that this lower bound gives the right

431: order of magnitude.

432: 

433: Specifically, let $\tT^{(n)}=a_{n^2}^{-1}T^{(n)}

434: =\sup_{A\in\cC^{(n)}}\sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i$.

435: Then we will show:

436: \begin{theorem}

437: \label{Ttheorem}

438: The random variable $T$ defined at (\ref{Tdef})

439: is almost surely finite, and 

440: $\tT^{(n)}\to T$ in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

441: \end{theorem}

442: 

443: For comparison, one can consider the case of a lighter tail. 

444: If $\int_0^\infty [1-F(x)]^{1/2}dx<\infty$

445: (this condition is very slightly stronger than the

446: existence of a finite second moment) then

447: a law of large numbers holds:

448: $n^{-1}T^{(n)}\to\gamma$ as $n\to\infty$

449: for some deterministic $\gamma$ \cite{animals}.

450: If the weights are exponential with mean 1,

451: then $\gamma=4$ \cite{Rost}, and then in fact 

452: one has the much finer convergence result that

453: $n^{-1/3}(T^{(n)}-4n)$ converges in distribution

454: as $n\to\infty$, to the \textit{GUE Tracy-Widom distribution}

455: \cite{Johshape}.

456: 

457: 

458: \begin{figure}[ht]

459: \centering

460: \epsfig{figure=pareto1.eps, width=1.25\linewidth}

461: \caption{A simulation of the last-passage percolation

462: model with $F$ given by a Pareto distribution with index $1$.

463: The ``tree'' consisting of optimal paths from $(1,1)$

464: to $(i,j)$, for all $1\leq i,j\leq 159$ is displayed;

465: the thickened path is the optimal path from $(1,1)$

466: to $(159, 159)$. This represents $P^{(n)*}$ in the language 

467: of Theorem \ref{paththeorem2}.

468: \label{paretofig}}

469: \end{figure}

470: \begin{figure}[ht]

471: \epsfig{figure=exponential.eps, width=1.25\linewidth}

472: \caption{As Figure \ref{paretofig}, but now with $F$

473: given by an exponential distribution. As $n$ grows,

474: the distribution of the optimal path from $(1,1)$ to $(n,n)$ 

475: becomes concentrated around the diagonal -- the deviations

476: of the path from a straight line are on the order of $n^{2/3}$.

477: This contrasts with the deviations on the order of $n$

478: observed in the heavy-tailed case, where the limiting 

479: path distribution is non-degenerate (as illustrated in Figure 

480: \ref{paretofig}).

481: \label{exponentialfig}}

482: \end{figure}

483: 

484: 

485: We now outline the results on 

486: path convergence, which are given in full in Section 

487: \ref{pathsection}.

488: We will show that the optimal 

489: path for the continuous model is well defined; 

490: that is, with probability 1 there exists a unique $A^*\in\cC$

491: such that $T=\sum_{i\in A^*} M_i$

492: (attaining the $\sup$ in (\ref{Tdef})). 

493: Then there is a unique closed connected set $P^*\subset[0,1]^2$

494: which contains all the points $Y_i, i\in A^*$ 

495: and which itself has the directed path property 

496: (i.e.\ $y\sim y'$ for all $y, y'\in P^*$).

497: 

498: 

499: 

500: Analogously, let $A^{(n)*}$ be the optimal

501: path for the discrete model, achieving

502: the $\max$ in (\ref{Tndef2})

503: (Since the weight distribution $F$

504: is continuous, the finitely many increasing paths 

505: all have different weights a.s., and

506: so this maximizing path is a.s.\ unique). 

507: Let $P^{(n)*}$ be obtained by linear 

508: interpolation between the locations 

509: $\{Y_i^{(n)}: i\in A^{(n)*}\}$

510: of weights used in this optimal path, taken in increasing order.

511: Then we show that the distribution of $P^{(n)*}$ converges

512: to that of $P^*$ as $n\to\infty$ (under the Hausdorff metric

513: on closed subsets of $[0,1]^2$).

514: 

515: 

516: 

517: In the corresponding situation for weights with

518: exponential distribution, the optimal path converges instead 

519: to a trivial limit, the straight line from $(0,0)$ to $(1,1)$. 

520: In general, the deviations of the optimal path from 

521: $(1,1)$ to $(n,n)$ in the discrete model

522: are expected to be of the order of $n^{2/3}$ in cases

523: falling into the KPZ universality class 

524: (proved rigorously in certain cases \cite{Johanssontransversal, BDMMZ}),

525: rather than on the order of $n$ as we see in the heavy-tailed case.

526: See Figures \ref{paretofig} and \ref{exponentialfig}

527: for simulations of optimal paths in the cases

528: of weight distributions which are Pareto and exponential.

529: 

530: \subsection{Last-passage random fields and the heavy-tailed Airy process}

531: \label{preAiry}

532: In Section \ref{Airysection} 

533: we show how the results described above 

534: can be extended to give the multivariate convergence 

535: of vectors of passage times to different points.

536: 

537: For $x, y>0$, let

538: $T^{(n)}(x,y)$ be the maximal weight of a path from $(1,1)$ to

539: $(\lceil nx\rceil, \lceil ny\rceil)$.

540: (So for example the quantity $T^{(n)}$ defined in 

541: (\ref{Tndef2}) is equal to $T^{(n)}(1,1)$).

542: 

543: Define also $\tT^{(n)}(x,y)=a_{n^2}^{-1}T^{(n)}(x,y)$ as before.

544: 

545: Then we will construct a random field $\{T(x,y), x, y>0\}$, using

546: a Poisson random measure construction rather than the sequence of

547: points ordered in decreasing order of weight above, in such a way that

548: \[ \Big\{\tT^{(n)}(x,y), x, y>0\Big\} \to \Big\{T(x,y),

549: x, y>0\Big\} \]

550: as $n\to\infty$, in the sense of convergence of finite-dimensional

551: distributions. 

552: 

553: From a scaling property of the distribution of the weights

554: one has further that the random field defined by 

555: \[ \Theta(u,v)=\exp\left(-\frac{u+v}{\alpha}\right) 

556: T\left(e^u, e^v\right) \]

557: is \textit{stationary} on $\RR^2$.

558: The convergence above can be rewritten as

559: \begin{equation}

560: \label{Thetaconv}

561: \Bigg\{ \exp\left(-\frac{u+v}{\alpha}\right) 

562: \tT^{(n)}\left(e^u,e^v\right), u,v\in\RR\Bigg\}

563: \to \Big\{\Theta(u,v), u, v\in\RR\Big\}. 

564: \end{equation}

565: 

566: To remove the multiplicative factor

567: on the LHS of (\ref{Thetaconv}), one can look at a line

568: $u+v=\text{const}$; for example, the process $H_y=\Theta(y,-y)$.  

569: This process is stationary in $y\in\RR$, and we obtain the

570: weak convergence

571: \[ \left\{ a_{n^2}^{-1} T^{(n)}\left(e^y,e^{-y}\right), y\in\RR\right\} 

572: \to 

573: \big\{\Theta(y,-y), y\in\RR \big\}. 

574: \]

575: This gives an analogy with the ``Airy process'' \cite{JohanssonAiry}

576: \cite{PraSpo}, which arises for example in the case where the 

577: underlying weight

578: distribution is exponential (with mean 1, say).  

579: There one obtains 

580: a stationary process limit

581: for the quantities

582: \[

583: \Big\{n^{-1/3} \Big[ T^{(n)}(1+yn^{-1/3}, 1-yn^{-1/3}) - 4n \Big],

584: \, y\in\RR \Big\},

585: \]

586: whose marginals are given by the GUE Tracy-Widom distribution.

587: Simulations of the ``heavy-tailed Airy process'' $H_y$ 

588: are given in Figures \ref{Airyfig1}-\ref{Airyfig3}.

589: 

590: We also obtain estimates on the moments and correlations

591: of the random field $T$, showing for example that

592: $\EE T(x,y)^\beta<\infty$ for all $\beta<\alpha$ 

593: and giving bounds for $\EE|T(x,y)-T(x',y')|^\beta$.

594: 

595: We note that the path convergence described above could

596: also be extended to the multivariate setting,

597: to describe the convergence of the distribution of

598: trees of optimal paths to a continuous tree structure

599: given by the set of optimal paths in the continuous

600: last-passage percolation model. However we do not

601: pursue this further in this paper.

602: 

603: \section{Convergence of the last-passage 

604: time distribution}

605: \label{Tsection}

606: 

607: To establish the convergence in Theorem \ref{Ttheorem},

608: we will work with approximations to $T$ and $T^{(n)}$

609: which depend only on the $k$ largest weights.

610: First, define

611: \begin{gather*}

612: \cC_k= \cC(Y_1, Y_2, \dots, Y_k)= \left\{A\subseteq\{1,2,\dots,k\}

613: \text{ such that for all } i,j\in A, Y_i\sim Y_j \right\}. \\

614: \cC^{(n)}_k= \cC^{(n)}_k(Y^{(n)}_1,\dots, Y^{(n)}_{k\wedge n^2})=

615: \left\{A\subseteq\{1,\dots,k\wedge n^2\}

616: \text{ such that for all } i,j\in A, 

617: Y^{(n)}_i\sim Y^{(n)}_j

618: \right\}.

619: \end{gather*}

620: 

621: Note that in fact 

622: $\cC_k

623: =\{A\in\cC: A\subseteq\{1,\dots,k\}\}

624: =\{A\cap\{1,\dots,k\}: A\in\cC\}$, and similarly for $\cC_k^{(n)}$.

625: 

626: Now let

627: \[

628: T_k=\sup_{A\in\cC}\sum_{i\in A, i\leq k} M_i,

629: \]

630: and 

631: \[

632: T^{(n)}_k=\sup_{A\in\cC^{(n)}}\sum_{i\in A, i\leq k} M^{(n)}_i.

633: \]

634: Note that indeed $T_k$ depends only on $(M_1,\dots, M_k)$

635: and $(Y_1,\dots, Y_k)$, while

636: $T^{(n)}_k$ depends only on $(M^{(n)}_1, \dots, M^{(n)}_k)$

637: and $(Y^{(n)}_1, \dots, Y^{(n)}_k)$.

638: 

639: As before, define 

640: $\tT^{(n)}_k=a_{n^2}^{-1}T^{(n)}_k$.

641: 

642: We also define the ``remainder terms'' $S_k$, $S^{(n)}_k$ by

643: \[

644: S_k=\sup_{A\in\cC}\sum_{i\in A, i>k} M_i

645: \,\,

646: \text{ and }

647: \,\,

648: S^{(n)}_k=\sup_{A\in\cC^{(n)}}\sum_{i\in A, i>k} M^{(n)}_i.

649: \]

650: Write also $\tS^{(n)}_k=a_{n^2}^{-1}S^{(n)}_k$.

651: 

652: \begin{lemma}

653: \label{Slemma}

654: With probability 1,

655: $S_k<\infty$ for all 

656: $k\geq 0$, and $S_k\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$.

657: \end{lemma}

658: 

659: In particular, putting $k=0$ we will have that $T<\infty$ a.s.

660: (Later on, we will show more, namely that $\EE T^\beta<\infty$

661: for all $0<\beta<\alpha$; see Proposition \ref{prop:fieldmoment}).

662: 

663: We will also have that $T_k\to T$ a.s.\ as $k\to\infty$,

664: since, for all $k$,

665: \begin{align*}

666: 0\leq T-T_k &=\sup_{A\in\cC} \sum_{i\in A} M_i - \sup_{A\in\cC} \sum_{i\in A,

667:   i\leq k} M_i \\

668: &\leq \sup_{A\in\cC} \sum_{i\in A, i>k} M_i \\

669: &= S_k.

670: \end{align*}

671: 

672: The convergence in Theorem \ref{Ttheorem} will then follow from the

673: following two results, which provide control over $T_k - \tT^{(n)}_k$

674: and $\tT^{(n)}_k - \tT^{(n)}$ for appropriate $k$:

675: 

676: \begin{proposition}

677: \label{coupledprop}

678: Let $\epsilon>0$ and $k$ be fixed.  Then for all 

679: $n$ sufficiently large,

680: say $n\geq N_k(\epsilon)$, there is a coupling 

681: of the continuous model and the discrete model 

682: indexed by $n$ under which 

683: \begin{gather}

684: \label{coupled1}

685: \PP\left(\sum_{i=1}^k \left| M_i - \tM^{(n)}_i \right| > \epsilon

686: \right) \leq \epsilon, \\

687: \label{coupled2}

688: \PP\left( \sum_{i=1}^k \left\| Y_i - Y^{(n)}_i \right\| > \epsilon

689: \right) \leq \epsilon, \\

690: \label{coupled3}

691: \PP\left( \cC_k^{(n)}\neq \cC_k \right) \leq \epsilon.

692: \end{gather}

693: \end{proposition}

694: 

695: \begin{proposition}

696: \label{Aprop}

697: Let $\epsilon>0$. Then for $k$ sufficiently large,

698: \[

699: \PP\left(\tS_k^{(n)}>\epsilon\right)\leq \epsilon

700: \]

701: for all $n$.

702: \end{proposition}

703: 

704: 

705: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Lemma \ref{Slemma}}:

706: 

707: First, we define $L_i=\sup_{A\in\cC}\left|A\cap\{1,\dots,i\}\right|$.

708: $L_i$ is the largest number of the points $Y_1,\dots,Y_i$ (the

709: locations of the $i$ largest weights) that can be included in an

710: increasing path.  Note that the collection $(L_i)$ is independent of

711: the collection $(M_i)$. 

712: $L_i$ has the distribution of the ``longest increasing subsequence''

713: of a random permutation of length $i$. In particular, there is a 

714: constant $c$ such that, for all $i$, $\EE L_i \leq c\sqrt{i}$ 

715: and $\EE L_i^2 \leq c i$; also, 

716: $L_i/\sqrt{i}\to 2$ in distribution.

717: See for example \cite{AldDiapatience} for a survey.

718: 

719: We will also write $U_k=\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty L_i(M_i-M_{i+1})$ for each

720: $k\geq 0$.  Fix $A\in\cC$, and define $R_i=|A\cap\{1,\dots,i\}|$.

721: Then $I(i\in A)=R_i-R_{i-1}$, and by definition $R_i\leq L_i$.

722: 

723: We have

724: \begin{align*}

725: \sum_{i\in A, i>k} M_i

726: &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i\in A, k<i\leq n} M_i

727: \\

728: &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=k+1}^n M_i I(i\in A)

729: \\

730: &=\lim_{n\to\infty}\sum_{i=k+1}^n M_i(R_i-R_{i-1})

731: \\

732: &=\lim_{n\to\infty}

733: \left[

734: -M_{k+1}R_k + \sum_{i=k+1}^{n-1} R_i(M_i-M_{i+1})

735: +M_n R_n

736: \right]

737: \\

738: &\leq

739: \lim_{n\to\infty}

740: \sum_{i=k+1}^{n-1} R_i(M_i-M_{i+1}) 

741: +\liminf_{n\to\infty} M_n R_n

742: \\

743: &\leq

744: \lim_{n\to\infty}

745: \sum_{i=k+1}^{n-1} L_i(M_i-M_{i+1}) 

746: +\liminf_{n\to\infty} M_n L_n

747: \\

748: &=

749: U_k +\liminf_{n\to\infty} M_n L_n.

750: \end{align*}

751: 

752: % Changed liminf to limsup above. And back again.

753: 

754: Now 

755: $\liminf_{n\to\infty} M_n L_n = 0$ a.s.;

756: this follows, for example, since 

757: (by the law of large numbers) $M_n \sim n^{-1/\alpha}$ a.s.\

758: (with $\alpha<2$), 

759: and since $L_n/\sqrt{n}$ converges in distribution to a constant.

760: 

761: Since the inequality above holds for any $A\in\cC$, 

762: we therefore have that $S_k\leq U_k$ a.s., for any $k$.

763: To conclude the proof, we will show that with probability 1,

764: $U_k<\infty$ for all $k$, and $U_k\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$.

765: (In fact, as soon as $U_1<\infty$, we necessarily 

766: have that $U_k\to0$ as $k\to\infty$,

767: since the quantity $U_k$ is the ``remainder'' from 

768: index $k+1$ onwards in the infinite sum $U_1$; 

769: if the infinite sum $U_1$ converges, then by definition

770: these remainders tend to 0).

771: 

772: Hence it's enough that $U_k<\infty$ a.s., for all $k$.

773: Specifically, we'll show that 

774: $\EE U_k$ is finite whenever $k>1/\alpha$.

775: Then certainly $U_k<\infty$ a.s.\ for such $k$, and

776: in fact $U_r<\infty$ a.s.\ for all $r$, since if $r<k$,

777: $U_r-U_k$ is the sum of only finitely many terms.

778: 

779: By independence of the collections $(L_i)$ and $(M_i)$,

780: \begin{align}

781: \nonumber

782: \EE U_k

783: &=\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty \EE L_i(\EE M_i - \EE M_{i+1})

784: \\

785: \label{Sbound}

786: &\leq 

787: \sum_{i=k+1}^\infty ci^{1/2}(\EE M_i - \EE M_{i+1}).

788: \end{align}

789: 

790: Now $M_r$ has the distribution of $(V_r)^{-1/\alpha}$, 

791: where $V_r$ has Gamma($r,1$) distribution. We then obtain

792: \begin{align}

793: \EE M_r

794: \nonumber

795: &=\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{\Gamma(r)} v^{r-1}e^{-v}v^{-1/\alpha} dv

796: \\

797: \label{Gammacalc}

798: &=\Gamma\big(r-1/\alpha\big)/\Gamma(r).

799: \end{align}

800: Using the identity $\Gamma(z+1)=z\Gamma(z)$ and the

801: fact that the gamma function is log convex,

802: one has

803: \begin{equation}

804: \label{Gammafact}

805: (x-1)^a\leq \frac{\Gamma(x+a)}{\Gamma(x)} \leq (x+a)^a

806: \end{equation}

807: for $x>1$, $a<0$.

808: Then 

809: \begin{align*}

810: \EE M_r-\EE M_{r+1}

811: &=\frac{\Gamma(r-1/\alpha)}{\Gamma(r)}-\frac{\Gamma(r+1-1/\alpha)}{\Gamma(r+1)}

812: \\

813: &=\frac{\Gamma(r-1/\alpha)\left[1-\frac{r-1/\alpha}{r}\right]}{\Gamma(r)}

814: \\

815: &=\frac{1}{\alpha r}\frac{\Gamma(r-1/\alpha)}{\Gamma(r)}

816: \\

817: &\leq \frac{1}{\alpha r}\big(r-1/\alpha-1)^{-1/\alpha}.

818: \end{align*}

819: 

820: Returning to (\ref{Sbound}), we have

821: \[

822: \EE U_k\leq \frac{c}{\alpha}\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty i^{-1/2}

823: \big(i-1/\alpha-1)^{-1/\alpha},

824: \]

825: which is finite for all $k>1/\alpha$ (since $\alpha<2$).$\hfill\Box$

826: 

827: \medskip

828: 

829: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{Ttheorem}}:

830: We will find a coupling of $\tilde{T}^{(n)}$ and $T$ for each $n$

831: such that $\tilde{T}^{(n)}-T\to 0$ in probability as $n\to\infty$.

832: 

833: For each $n\in\NN$, define $k_n=\max\{k:n\geq N_k(1/k)\}$.

834: 

835: Then $k_n\to\infty$ as $n\to\infty$, and, for all $n$,

836: $n\geq N_{k_n}(1/k_n)$.

837: Hence from Propositions \ref{coupledprop} and \ref{Aprop}

838: and from Lemma \ref{Slemma},

839: there are couplings such that, as $n\to\infty$,

840: \begin{gather}

841: \label{conv}

842: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left| M_i - \tM^{(n)}_i \right| \to 0

843: \\

844: \nonumber

845: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left\| Y_i - Y^{(n)}_i \right\| \to 0

846: \\

847: \nonumber

848: \tS^{(n)}_{k_n}\to 0

849: \\

850: \nonumber

851: S_{k_n}\to 0

852: \\

853: \intertext{in probability, and}

854: \nonumber

855: \PP\left( \cC_{k_n}^{(n)}\neq \cC_{k_n} \right) \to 0.

856: \end{gather}

857: 

858: Now 

859: \[ T-\tT^{(n)} = \left( T-T_{k_n} \right) + \left( T_{k_n} -

860: \tT^{(n)}_{k_n} \right) + \left( \tT^{(n)}_{k_n} - \tT^{(n)}. \right)

861: \] 

862: We have $|T-T_{k_n}|\leq S_{k_n}$ and $|\tT^{(n)}_{k_n}-\tT^{(n)}|\leq

863: \tS^{(n)}_{k_n}$, so to show that the LHS converges to 0 in

864: probability as desired, it remains to show that $\left(

865: T_{k_n}-\tT^{(n)}_{k_n} \right)\to 0$ in probability.

866: 

867: We have

868: \[

869: T_{k_n}=\max_{A\in\cC_{k_n}} \sum_{i\in A} M_i

870: \qquad

871: \text{ and }

872: \qquad

873: \tT^{(n)}_{k_n}=\max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}_{k_n}} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i,

874: \]

875: so if $\cC_{k_n}=\cC^{(n)}_{k_n}$, then

876: \[

877: \left| T_{k_n}-\tT^{(n)}_{k_n} \right|

878: \leq

879: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n}\left| M_i-\tM^{(n)}_i \right|.

880: \]

881: Since $\PP\left(\cC_{k_n}\neq\cC^{(n)}_{k_n}\right)\to 0$ 

882: and $\sum_{i=1}^{k_n}\left| M_i-\tM^{(n)}_i \right|\to 0$

883: in probability, we are done.\enpf

884: 

885: To complete the proof it remains to prove

886: Propositions \ref{coupledprop} and \ref{Aprop}.

887: 

888: \subsection{Convergence of $\tT^{(n)}_k$ to $T_k$}

889: 

890: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{coupledprop}}:

891: 

892: We have 

893: $(\tM^{(n)}_1,\dots,\tM^{(n)}_k,Y^{(n)}_1,\dots,Y^{(n)}_k)

894: \to

895: (M_1,\dots,M_k,Y_1,\dots,Y_k)$ in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

896: By the Skorohod Representation Theorem, we can define 

897: all the variables on the same space in such a way that

898: the convergence occurs almost surely.

899: Then indeed (\ref{coupled1}) and (\ref{coupled2}) must hold for 

900: large enough $n$.

901: 

902: Note that since the variables $Y_i$ are i.i.d.\ uniform 

903: on $[0,1]^2$, there are almost surely no two $i$ and $j$

904: such that $Y_i(d)=Y_j(d)$ for $d=1$ or $2$.

905: 

906: Thus if we perturb the point $(Y_1,\dots, Y_k)$ by a small 

907: enough amount, the orderings of all the coordinates 

908: remain the same, and the set $\cC_k$ of increasing paths is unchanged.

909: In fact, if

910: \[

911: \max_{1\leq i\leq k} \|Y_i-Y^{(n)}_i\|

912: \leq

913: \frac{1}{2}\min_{1\leq i,j \leq k, i\neq j} \min_{d=1,2} |Y_i(d)-Y_j(d)|,

914: \]

915: then $\cC^{(n)}_k=\cC_k$. Since we have $Y^{(n)}_i\to Y_i$

916: a.s.\ on the joint probability space for all $1\leq i\leq k$,

917: we then have $\cC^{(n)}_k=\cC_k$ eventually,

918: with probability 1.

919: Thus (\ref{coupled3}) must also hold for all large enough $n$,

920: as desired. $\hfill\Box$

921: 

922: 

923: \subsection{Convergence of $\tT^{(n)}-\tT^{(n)}_k$ to $0$}

924: 

925: Our aim in this section is to prove Proposition \ref{Aprop}.

926: 

927: Define the ``good event'' $\cB^{(n)}_k$:

928: \begin{equation}

929: \label{Bdef}

930: \cB^{(n)}_k =\left\{

931: F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{2r}{n^2}\right)

932: \leq

933: M^{(n)}_r

934: \leq 

935: F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)

936: \text{ for all } k<r\leq n^2

937: \right\}.

938: \end{equation}

939: 

940: \begin{lemma}

941: \label{Blemma}

942: $\PP\left(\cB^{(n)}_k\right)\to 1$ as $k\to\infty$, uniformly in $n$.

943: \end{lemma}

944: 

945: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

946: \begin{align*}

947: \PP\left(\cB^{(n)}_k \text{ fails }\right)

948: &\leq \PP\left( M^{(n)}_{k+1}> F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)

949: \right) +\sum_{r=k+1}^{\lfloor n^2/2 \rfloor}

950: \PP\left( M^{(n)}_r< F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{2r}{n^2}\right) \right)

951: \\

952: &= \PP\left(\text{Binomial}(n^2,1/n^2)\geq k+1\right)

953: +\sum_{r=k+1}^{\lfloor n^2/2 \rfloor}

954: \PP\left(\text{Binomial}(n^2, 2r/n^2) < r\right)

955: \\

956: &\leq\frac{1}{k+1} + \sum_{r=k+1}^{\lfloor n^2/2 \rfloor} 

957: 2\exp\left(-\frac{r}{12}\right),

958: \end{align*}

959: using Markov's inequality for the first term and 

960: an estimate from Corollary 2.3 of \cite{JLRbook} for the second.

961: The RHS tends to 0 as $k\to\infty$, uniformly in $n$, as 

962: required.$\hfill\Box$

963: 

964: \medskip

965: 

966: Now, we will prove a bound on the expectation

967: of $\tS^{(n)}_k$ 

968: in terms of the ``order statistics''

969: $M^{(n)}_r$. 

970: Define

971: \[

972: L^{(n)}_i= \max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}} \left| A\cap\{1,2,\dots,i\} \right|.

973: \]

974: Recall that $Y^{(n)}_r\in\{1,2,\dots,n\}^2$ is

975: the location of the $r$th largest weight, $M^{(n)}_r$.

976: Thus, $L^{(n)}_i$ is the maximum number of the 

977: points $Y^{(n)}_1,\dots,Y^{(n)}_i$ that can be included

978: in an increasing path.

979: 

980: %Lemma \ref{pathsizelemma} tells us that 

981: %$\EE L^{(n)}_m\leq c\sqrt{m}$ for all $m\leq n^2$

982: %(since the distribution of $\{Y^{(n)}_1,\dots,Y^{(n)}_m\}$

983: %is uniform over the subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}$ of size $m$).

984: 

985: Note that the collection $(L^{(n)}_r)_{1\leq r\leq n^2}$ 

986: is a function of the values $Y^{(n)}_r$ alone;

987: in particular it is independent of the weights $M^{(n)}_r$

988: and of the events $B^{(n)}_r$.

989: 

990: \begin{lemma}

991: \label{Lboundlemma}

992: There is a constant $c$ independent of $m$ and $n$ such 

993: that $\EE L^{(n)}_m \leq c\sqrt{m}$, whenever $1\leq m\leq n^2$.

994: \end{lemma}

995: 

996: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

997: The distribution of 

998: $\{Y^{(n)}_1,\dots,Y^{(n)}_m\}$

999: is uniform over the subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}^2$ of size $m$,

1000: and 

1001: $L^{(n)}_r$ is the maximum number of the 

1002: points $Y^{(n)}_1,\dots,Y^{(n)}_r$ that can be included

1003: in an increasing path.

1004: 

1005: We compare this with the last-passage percolation

1006: problem in $\{1,\dots,n\}^2$ with i.i.d.\

1007: Bernoulli($p$) weights.

1008: 

1009: We have the following representation for the expectation 

1010: of the passage time for such a problem:

1011: \begin{equation}

1012: \label{dec}

1013: \EE_{\Ber(p)} T(n,n)=\sum_{r} \PP(B_{p,n^2}=r)\EE L^{(n)}_r,

1014: \end{equation}

1015: where 

1016: $B_{p,n^2}$ has Binomial($p,n^2$) distribution,

1017: since, conditional on the event

1018: that exactly $r$ of the $n^2$ weights

1019: have value 1, the set of positions of the weights 

1020: with value 1 is uniformly distributed among all the 

1021: subsets of $\{1,\dots,n\}^2$ of size $r$.

1022: 

1023: Proposition 2.2 of \cite{animals} shows that there

1024: exists a constant $c_1$ such that 

1025: \begin{equation}

1026: \label{animalsbound}

1027: \EE_{\Ber(p)} T(n,n)\leq c_1 p^{1/2}n

1028: \end{equation}

1029: for all $n$, $p$.

1030: 

1031: Given $1\leq m\leq n^2$, set $p=\min(2m/n^2,1)$.

1032: Using (\ref{dec}), (\ref{animalsbound}) and the 

1033: fact that $\EE L^{(n)}_r$ is increasing in $r$,

1034: we obtain

1035: \begin{align*}

1036: \PP(B_{p,n^2}\geq m)\EE L^{(n)}_m

1037: &\leq \sum_{r} \PP(B_{p,n^2}=r)\EE L^{(n)}_r

1038: \\

1039: &\leq c_1 \left(\min(2m/n^2,1)\right)^{1/2} n

1040: \\

1041: &\leq c_2\sqrt{m}.

1042: \end{align*}

1043: 

1044: To complete the proof, it then suffices to bound

1045: $\PP(B_{p,n^2}\geq m)$ away from 0 uniformly in $1\leq m\leq n^2$.

1046: 

1047: If $m\geq n^2/2$ then $p=1$ and $\PP(B_{p,n^2}\geq m)=1$.

1048: 

1049: For $1\leq m\leq n^2/2$, we have $pn^2/2=m$,

1050: and we use the estimate

1051: \[

1052: \PP(B_{p,n^2}<pn^2/2)\leq \exp(-pn^2/8),

1053: \]

1054: (see for example Theorem 2.1 of \cite{JLRbook}),

1055: to give

1056: $\PP(B_{p,n^2}\geq m)\geq 1-\exp(-1/8)$ uniformly 

1057: in $1\leq m\leq n^2/2$ 

1058: as desired.$\hfill\Box$

1059: 

1060: \begin{lemma}

1061: \label{differencelemma}

1062: \[

1063: \EE\left(\tS^{(n)}_k;\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1064: \leq

1065: c(k+1)^{1/2}\EE \left(\tM^{(n)}_{k+1};\cB^{(n)}_k\right) 

1066: + c\sum_{r=k+2}^{n^2} r^{-1/2} \EE \left(\tM^{(n)}_r;\cB^{(n)}_k\right).

1067: \]

1068: \end{lemma}

1069: 

1070: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

1071: The argument is similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{Slemma}.

1072: 

1073: Let $\tA$ achieve the max in the definition of $\tS^{(n)}_k$,

1074: so that $\tS^{(n)}_k=\sum_{i\in\tA, i>k}\tM^{(n)}_i$.

1075: 

1076: Define

1077: $R_i=|\tA\cap\{1,2,\dots,i\}|$ for each $i$.

1078: Then $R_i-R_{i-1}=I(i\in\tA)$,

1079: and by definition $R_i\leq L_i^{(n)}$ for each $i$.

1080: We then have

1081: \begin{align*}

1082: \tS^{(n)}_k

1083: &=

1084: \sum_{i\in\tA, i>k} \tM^{(n)}_i

1085: \\

1086: &= \sum_{i=k+1}^{n^2} \tM^{(n)}_i\left(R_i-R_{i-1}\right)

1087: \\

1088: &= -R_k \tM^{(n)}_{k+1}

1089: +\sum_{i=k+1}^{n^2-1} R_i\left(\tM^{(n)}_i-\tM^{(n)}_{i+1}\right)

1090: +R_{n^2} \tM^{(n)}_{n^2}

1091: \\

1092: &\leq 

1093: \sum_{i=k+1}^{n^2-1} L^{(n)}_i\left(\tM^{(n)}_i-\tM^{(n)}_{i+1}\right)

1094: +L^{(n)}_{n^2} \tM^{(n)}_{n^2},

1095: \end{align*}

1096: since $R_i^{(n)}\leq L_i^{(n)}$ and $\tM_i^{(n)}\geq \tM_{i+1}^{(n)}$.

1097: 

1098: We now take expectations, restricted to the event 

1099: $\cB^{(n)}_k$, using 

1100: Lemma \ref{Lboundlemma} and

1101: the independence of the $L^{(n)}_r$ 

1102: from the $\tM^{(n)}_r$:

1103: %\begin{multline*}

1104: \begin{align*}

1105: \EE\left(\tS^{(n)}_k;\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1106: %\\

1107: %\begin{aligned}

1108: &\leq

1109: \sum_{i=k+1}^{n^2-1} 

1110: \EE L^{(n)}_i

1111: \left[\EE\left(\tM^{(n)}_i;\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1112: -\EE\left(\tM^{(n)}_{i+1};\cB^{(n)}_k\right)\right]

1113: +\EE L^{(n)}_{n^2} 

1114: \EE\left(\tM^{(n)}_{n^2};\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1115: \\

1116: &\leq

1117: \sum_{i=k+1}^{n^2-1} 

1118: c\sqrt{i}

1119: \left[\EE\left(\tM^{(n)}_i;\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1120: -\EE\left(\tM^{(n)}_{i+1};\cB^{(n)}_k\right)\right]

1121: +

1122: cn

1123: \EE L^{(n)}_{n^2} 

1124: \EE\left(\tM^{(n)}_{n^2};\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1125: \\

1126: &=

1127: c\sqrt{k+1}\EE \left(\tM^{(n)}_{k+1};\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1128: + 

1129: c\sum_{i=k+2}^{n^2} 

1130: \left(\sqrt{i}-\sqrt{i-1}\right)\EE \left(\tM^{(n)}_i;\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1131: \\

1132: &\leq

1133: c\sqrt{k+1}\EE \left(\tM^{(n)}_{k+1};\cB^{(n)}_k\right)

1134: + 

1135: c\sum_{i=k+2}^{n^2} 

1136: i^{-1/2}

1137: \EE \left(\tM^{(n)}_i;\cB^{(n)}_k\right),

1138: \end{align*}

1139: %\end{aligned}

1140: %\end{multline*}

1141: since $i^{1/2}-(i-1)^{1/2}\leq i^{-1/2}$. 

1142: This is the required result.$\hfill\Box$

1143: 

1144: \medskip

1145: 

1146: The next lemma gives an estimate

1147: on the tail behaviour of the weight distribution

1148: using the regular variation condition.

1149: Note that if the weight distribution were Pareto($\alpha$),

1150: then $F^{-1}(u)=(1-u)^{-1/\alpha}$,

1151: and one then has exactly 

1152: $F^{-1}(u_1)= 

1153: F^{-1}(u_0)\left[

1154: (1-u_1)/(1-u_0)

1155: \right]^{-1/\alpha}$ for any $u_0$, $u_1$.

1156: 

1157: \begin{lemma}

1158: \label{regboundlemma}

1159: For any $\delta>0$, there exists $U(\delta)<1$ such that

1160: for all $u_0, u_1$ with $U(\delta) \leq u_1 \leq u_0$, 

1161: \[

1162: F^{-1}(u_1)\leq 

1163: 2F^{-1}(u_0)\left(

1164: \frac{1-u_1}{1-u_0}

1165: \right)^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}.

1166: \]

1167: \end{lemma}

1168: 

1169: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

1170: Fix $s>1$ sufficiently small that $s^{1/\alpha-\delta}<2$.

1171: 

1172: From the fact that the tail of $F$ is regularly

1173: varying with index $\alpha$, the following property holds:

1174: if $u_1$ is sufficiently close to $1$ (at least $U(\delta)$, say),

1175: then for all $(1-u_0)<(1-u_1)/s$, 

1176: \[

1177: \frac{F^{-1}(u_1)}{F^{-1}(u_0)} < s^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}.

1178: \]

1179: 

1180: Iterating, one obtains that if $U(\delta)\leq u_1\leq u_0$, then

1181: \begin{align*}

1182: \frac{F^{-1}(u_1)}{F^{-1}(u_0)} 

1183: &< 

1184: \left(

1185: s^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}

1186: \right)^{\left\lfloor \log_s \left((1-u_1)/(1-u_0)\right)\right\rfloor}

1187: \\

1188: &=

1189: \exp\left[

1190: \left(-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta\right)(\log s)

1191: \genfrac\lfloor\rfloor{}{}{\log\left((1-u_1)/(1-u_0)\right)}{\log s}

1192: \right]

1193: \\

1194: &\leq

1195: \exp\left[

1196: \left(-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta\right)

1197: \left(\log\frac{1-u_1}{1-u_0}-\log s\right)

1198: \right]

1199: \\

1200: &=

1201: \genfrac(){}{}{1-u_1}{1-u_0}^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}

1202: s^{\frac{1}{\alpha}-\delta}

1203: \\

1204: &\leq

1205: 2\genfrac(){}{}{1-u_1}{1-u_0}^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}

1206: \end{align*}

1207: as required.$\hfill\Box$

1208: 

1209: \medskip

1210: 

1211: Finally we use this tail estimate to control

1212: the expectation of the variables $\tM^{(n)}_r$,

1213: restricted to the ``good set'' $\cB^{(n)}_k$.

1214: 

1215: \begin{lemma}

1216: \label{EMlemma}

1217: Let $\delta>0$. Then there exist $c_0$, $c_1$ and $c_2>0$ such that

1218: \[

1219: \EE\left(

1220: \tM^{(n)}_r; \cB^{(n)}_k 

1221: \right)

1222: \leq

1223: c_0  r^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}

1224: + c_1 a_{n^2}^{-1} I(r\geq c_2 n^2)

1225: \]

1226: for all $n$, $k$, $r$ satisfying 

1227: $2(1+1/\alpha)< k < r \leq n^2$.

1228: \end{lemma}

1229: 

1230: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

1231: Let $U(\delta)$ be as in Lemma \ref{regboundlemma},

1232: and set $c_2 = (1-U(\delta))/2$.

1233: %%$c_2=\sqrt{2/(1-U(\delta))}$. 

1234: Then 

1235: $r<c_2 n^2 \Leftrightarrow 1-2r/n^2 > U(\delta)$.

1236: 

1237: Note that if 

1238: \[

1239: \max\left\{U(\delta),1-\frac{2r}{n^2}\right\} \leq u \leq 1-\frac{1}{n^2},

1240: \]

1241: then, by Lemma \ref{regboundlemma},

1242: \begin{align}

1243: \nonumber

1244: F^{-1}(u)

1245: &\leq 

1246: 2F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)

1247: \left[n^2(1-u)\right]^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\delta}

1248: \\

1249: \nonumber

1250: &= 2 a_{n^2} n^{-2/\alpha}(1-u)^{-1/\alpha}\left[n^2(1-u)\right]^\delta

1251: \\

1252: \label{powerbound}

1253: &\leq

1254: 2 a_{n^2} n^{-2/\alpha}(1-u)^{-1/\alpha}(2r)^\delta.

1255: \end{align}

1256: 

1257: Since $r>k$, we have that

1258: \[

1259: \cB^{(n)}_k\subseteq

1260: \left\{

1261: F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{2r}{n^2}\right)

1262: \leq

1263: M^{(n)}_r

1264: \leq

1265: F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)

1266: \right\}.

1267: \]

1268: 

1269: 

1270: Hence

1271: \begin{align}

1272: \nonumber

1273: \EE\Big(\tM^{(n)}_r ; &\cB^{(n)}_k\Big)

1274: \\

1275: &\leq a_{n^2}^{-1} \EE\left(M^{(n)}_r ; 

1276: F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{2r}{n^2}\right)

1277: \leq M^{(n)}_r \leq F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)

1278: \right)

1279: \\

1280: \nonumber

1281: &= a_{n^2}^{-1} \EE\left(F^{-1}\left(U^{(n)}_r\right) ; 

1282: 1-\frac{2r}{n^2} \leq U^{(n)}_r \leq 1-\frac{1}{n^2} \right)

1283: \\ \nonumber &= a_{n^2}^{-1}

1284: \int_{1-2r/n^2}^{1-1/n^2} F^{-1}(u) f_{r;n^2}(u) du

1285: \\ \nonumber &= a_{n^2}^{-1}

1286: I\left\{1-\frac{2r}{n^2} \leq U(\delta)\right\}F^{-1}(U(\delta))

1287: +a_{n^2}^{-1}

1288: \int_{\max\left\{U(\delta),1-2r/n^2\right\}}^{1-1/n^2} 

1289: F^{-1}(u) f_{r;n^2}(u) du

1290: \\

1291: \nonumber

1292: &\leq

1293: c_1 a_{n^2}^{-1}

1294: I\left(r\geq c_2 n^2\right)

1295: +\int_{\max\left\{U(\delta),1-2r/n^2\right\}}^{1-1/n^2} 

1296: 2 n^{-2/\alpha}(1-u)^{-1/\alpha}(2r)^\delta

1297: f_{r;n^2}(u) du

1298: \\

1299: \label{midstep}

1300: &\leq

1301: c_1 I\left(r\geq c_2 n^2\right)

1302: +c_3 a_{n^2} n^{-2/\alpha}r^{\delta}

1303: \int_0^1 (1-u)^{-1/\alpha}f_{r;n^2}(u) du,

1304: \end{align}

1305: where $c_1=F^{-1}(U(\delta))$ and $c_3=2^{1+\delta}$,

1306: and where $f_{r;n^2}$ is the density function 

1307: of the $r$th largest from an i.i.d.\ sample of size $n^2$ from 

1308: the uniform distribution on $[0,1]$.

1309: 

1310: Now

1311: \[

1312: f_{r;n^2}(u)=

1313: \frac{\Gamma(n^2+1)}{\Gamma(n^2-r+1)\Gamma(r)}

1314: (1-u)^{r-1}u^{n^2-r},

1315: \]

1316: and, since $r-1-1/\alpha>0$, one then has

1317: \begin{align}

1318: \nonumber

1319: \int_0^1 (1-u)^{-1/\alpha}f_{r;n^2}(u) du

1320: &=

1321: \frac{\Gamma(n^2+1)}{\Gamma(n^2-r+1)\Gamma(r)}

1322: \int_0^1 (1-u)^{r-1-1/\alpha}u^{n^2-r} du

1323: \\

1324: \nonumber

1325: &=

1326: \frac{\Gamma(n^2+1)}{\Gamma(n^2-r+1)\Gamma(r)}

1327: \genfrac(){}{}

1328: {\Gamma(n^2+1-1/\alpha)}

1329: {\Gamma(n^2-r+1)\Gamma(r-1/\alpha)}^{-1}

1330: \\

1331: \label{Gammaid}

1332: &=

1333: \frac{\Gamma(n^2+1)}{\Gamma(n^2+1-1/\alpha)}

1334: \frac{\Gamma(r-1/\alpha)}{\Gamma(r)}.

1335: \end{align}

1336: 

1337: Using (\ref{Gammafact}),

1338: the RHS of (\ref{Gammaid}) is bounded above by

1339: \[

1340: \frac{(n^2+1)^{1/\alpha}}{(r-1-1/\alpha)^{1/\alpha}}.

1341: \]

1342: Since $r>2(1+1/\alpha)$, this is in turn 

1343: no greater than $\left(4n^2/r\right)^{1/\alpha}$.

1344: Inserting this into (\ref{midstep}) gives the desired 

1345: result.$\hfill\Box$

1346: 

1347: \medskip

1348: 

1349: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{Aprop}:}

1350: We may assume that $k\leq n^2$, 

1351: since if $k>n^2$ then $\tS^{(n)}_k=0$.

1352: 

1353: Fix $\epsilon>0$, and fix some $\delta<\frac{1}{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}$.

1354: Using Markov's inequality, we have

1355: \[

1356: \PP\left(\tS^{(n)}_k>\epsilon\right) 

1357: \leq

1358: \PP(\cB^{(n)}_k \text{ fails })

1359: + \epsilon^{-1} 

1360: \EE

1361: \left(\tS^{(n)}_k; \cB^{(n)}_k \right).

1362: \]

1363: 

1364: By Lemma \ref{Blemma}, the first term tends to 0 as $k\to\infty$,

1365: uniformly in $n$. For the second term, Lemmas \ref{differencelemma}

1366: and \ref{EMlemma} combine to give

1367: \begin{multline*}

1368: \EE

1369: \left(\tS^{(n)}_k; \cB^{(n)}_k \right)

1370: \leq

1371: cc_0(k+1)^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{1}{2}+\delta}

1372: +

1373: cc_0\sum_{r=k+2}^{n^2} r^{-\frac{1}{\alpha}-\frac{1}{2}+\delta}

1374: \\

1375: +

1376: cc_1(k+1)^{\frac{1}{2}}a_{n^2}^{-1}

1377: +

1378: cc_1 a_{n^2}^{-1} \sum_{c_2 n^2 \leq r \leq n^2} r^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

1379: \end{multline*}

1380: From the choice of $\delta$ and the fact that $a_{n^2}/n\to \infty$ as 

1381: $n\to\infty$,

1382: one obtains that 

1383: all four terms on the RHS tend to 0 as $k\to\infty$ uniformly in $n$ 

1384: such that $k\leq n^2$.

1385: 

1386: Hence indeed

1387: $\PP\left(\tS^{(n)}_k>\epsilon\right)<\epsilon$ 

1388: for all large enough $k$, uniformly in $n$

1389: such that $k\leq n^2$, 

1390: as required.$\hfill\Box$

1391: 

1392: \section{Path convergence}

1393: \label{pathsection}

1394: 

1395: In this section we will state and prove results describing

1396: the convergence of the distribution of the 

1397: optimal paths for the discrete 

1398: models to that for the limiting continuous model.

1399: 

1400: First we note that the optimal path for the continuous model

1401: is well-defined:

1402: 

1403: \begin{proposition}

1404: \label{uniquenessprop}

1405: With probability 1,

1406: there exists a unique $A^*\in\cC$ such that

1407: $T=\sum_{i\in A^*} M_i$.

1408: \end{proposition}

1409: 

1410: We will also define $A^{(n)*}$

1411: as the set that achieves the maximum in

1412: \[

1413: T^{(n)}=\max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}}\sum_{i\in A} M^{(n)}_i.

1414: \]

1415: (or in the equivalent expression for $\tT^{(n)}$).

1416: (Since the weight distribution is assumed to be continuous, 

1417: this optimal set is almost surely unique).

1418: 

1419: It will be useful to extend the sequences

1420: $(Y^{(n)}_i)_i$ and $(\tM^{(n)}_i)_i$ to all $i\in\NN$

1421: (rather than only $i\leq n^2$); 

1422: for example, we can put $\tM^{(n)}_i=0$, $Y^{(n)}_i=(0,0)$

1423: for all $i\geq n^2$. We will consider always the

1424: product topology when looking at convergence

1425: of such infinite sequences.

1426: 

1427: We also use the product topology on $\cS$, the set of subsets of $\NN$.  

1428: Thus, given $A$ and a sequence $A_k$ in $\cS$, we have $A_k\to A$ if, for

1429: every $m$, $A_k \cap \{1,\dots,m\}$ is equal to $A \cap \{1,\dots,m\}$

1430: for all large enough $k$.  One has easily that any sequence $A_k$ has

1431: at least one limit point, and also that if $A_k\in\cC$ for each $k$

1432: then every limit point is also in $\cC$ (since if the limit point

1433: contains $i$ and $j$, then $i$ and $j$ are in $A_k$ for some $k$, and

1434: hence $Y_i\sim Y_j$).

1435: 

1436: The following theorem is our first path convergence result. 

1437: Later (in Theorem \ref{paththeorem2}) we will use 

1438: it to prove a more direct convergence result

1439: concerning the optimal paths viewed as random subsets of $[0,1]^2$.

1440: 

1441: \begin{theorem}

1442: \label{paththeorem}

1443: $\Big(\big(Y^{(n)}_i\big)_{i\in\NN}, A^{(n)*}\Big)

1444: \to

1445: \Big(\big(Y_i\big)_{i\in\NN}, A^{*}\Big)$

1446: in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

1447: \end{theorem}

1448: 

1449: Before proving Proposition \ref{uniquenessprop} and 

1450: Theorem \ref{paththeorem}, we need the following fact:

1451: \begin{lemma}

1452: \label{pathlemma}

1453: With probability 1, the following holds:

1454: if $A_j$ is a sequence in $\cC$ converging to

1455: a limit $A$, then

1456: $\lim_{j\to\infty}\sum_{i\in A_j} M_i=\sum_{i\in A} M_i$.

1457: \end{lemma}

1458: 

1459: \noindent

1460: [N.B.\ this result is not true in general for sequences $A_j$ in $\cS$ 

1461: (unless $\alpha<1$ so that $\sum M_i<\infty$ a.s.)]

1462: \medskip

1463: 

1464: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

1465: If $A_j \cap \{1,\dots,m\}=A \cap \{1,\dots,m\}$ then

1466: \[ \left|\sum_{i\in A_j} M_i - \sum_{i\in A} M_i \right|

1467: \leq \sup_{\tA\in\cC} \sum_{i\in\tA,i>m} M_i =S_m. \]

1468: But $S_m\to 0$ a.s.\ as $m\to\infty$ (from Lemma \ref{Slemma}),

1469: and $A_j \cap \{1,\dots,m\}=A \cap \{1,\dots,m\}$

1470: eventually for all $m$, so we are done.$\hfill\Box$

1471: 

1472: \medskip

1473: 

1474: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{uniquenessprop}}:

1475: Recall that 

1476: \[

1477: T_k=\sup_{A\in\cC}\sum_{i\in A, i\leq k} M_i.

1478: \]

1479: Since the sum on the RHS depends only 

1480: on the intersection of $A$ with $\{1,\dots,k\}$,

1481: we only need to consider the max over finitely 

1482: many $A\subseteq\{1,\dots,k\}$. 

1483: Thus there exists some $A^*_{k}$ which achieves the sup.

1484: 

1485: 

1486: %Note that if $A_k\to A$ and each $A_k$ is in $\cC$,

1487: %then also $A\in\cC$ 

1488: %(since if $i$, $j$ are in $A$,

1489: %then $i$ and $j$ are in $A_k$ for some $k$,

1490: %and hence $Y_i$ and $Y_j$ are compatible).

1491: 

1492: We consider the sequence $A^*_k$. 

1493: As observed above, this sequence has

1494: at least one limit point $A^*\in\cC$, 

1495: and by Lemma \ref{pathlemma},

1496: $\sum_{i\in A^*} M_i=\lim_{k\to\infty} \sum_{i\in A^*_k} M_i

1497: =\lim_{k\to\infty} T_k = T$.

1498: 

1499: Now we wish to show that in fact a unique $A^*$ 

1500: achieves the sum $T$.

1501: 

1502: Suppose instead that there are two such optimising sets in $\cC$.

1503: Then there is some $k$ that is contained in one but not the other.

1504: 

1505: In that case,

1506: \begin{align*}

1507: \sup_{A\in\cC, k\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} M_i

1508: &=

1509: \sup_{A\in\cC, k\in A} \sum_{i\in A} M_i

1510: \\

1511: &=M_k+\sup_{A\in\cC, k\in A} \sum_{i\in A, i\neq k} M_i,

1512: \end{align*}

1513: which gives

1514: \begin{equation}\label{event}

1515: M_k=

1516: \sup_{A\in\cC, k\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} M_i

1517: -

1518: \sup_{A\in\cC, k\in A} \sum_{i\in A, i\neq k} M_i.

1519: \end{equation}

1520: We will show that this event has probability 0 for each $k$; 

1521: then, by countable additivity, we are done.

1522: 

1523: The RHS of (\ref{event}) does not depend on $M_k$;

1524: in fact, it is a function of the collection

1525: $\big( (M_i)_{i\in\NN\setminus\{k\}}, (Y_i)_{i\in\NN} \big)$.

1526: We condition on the value of this collection.

1527: Then the RHS is a constant, while the random variable

1528: $M_k$ on the LHS has a continuous distribution.

1529: (Specifically, the distribution

1530: of $M_k^{-\alpha}$ conditional on this collection

1531: is uniform on the interval 

1532: $\left( M_{k-1}^{-\alpha}, M_{k+1}^{-\alpha}\right)$,

1533: since the sequence $\left(M_i^{-\alpha}\right)$ 

1534: forms the points of a Poisson process).

1535: Hence the event (\ref{event}) has probability 0, 

1536: as required.$\hfill\Box$

1537: 

1538: \medskip

1539: 

1540: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{paththeorem}}:

1541: We will use the same couplings as in the proof of

1542: Theorem \ref{Ttheorem}.

1543: As at (\ref{conv}), we then have that 

1544: $\PP\left(

1545: \cC_{k_n}^{(n)}\neq \cC_{k_n}

1546: \right)

1547: \to 0$ as $n\to\infty$,

1548: and that all of the quantities

1549: $\sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left| M_i - \tM^{(n)}_i \right|$,

1550: $\sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left\| Y_i - Y^{(n)}_i \right\|$,

1551: $\tS^{(n)}_{k_n}$ and 

1552: $S_{k_n}$ converge to 0

1553: in probability as $n\to\infty$.

1554: 

1555: To prove Theorem \ref{paththeorem}, it will then suffice

1556: to show in addition that for any $m$,

1557: \[

1558: \PP\left(A^{(n)*}\cap\{1,\dots,m\}\neq 

1559: A^{*}\cap\{1,\dots,m\}\right)\to 0

1560: \]

1561: as $n\to\infty$.

1562: For this, it's in turn enough to show that for all $r$,

1563: \begin{gather}

1564: \label{firstone}

1565: \PP\left(r\in A^*,r\notin A^{(n)*}\right)\to 0

1566: \\

1567: \label{secondone}

1568: \PP\left(r\notin A^*,r\in A^{(n)*}\right)\to 0

1569: \end{gather}

1570: as $n\to\infty$.

1571: We will show (\ref{firstone}); an analogous argument gives 

1572: (\ref{secondone}).

1573: 

1574: Define $T_{(-r)}=\sup_{A\in\cC, r\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} M_i$.

1575: 

1576: Suppose $r\in A^*$. 

1577: Then $T_{(-r)} < T$ strictly.

1578: (Otherwise, there is a 

1579: sequence of members of $\cC$, none of which contain $r$,

1580: whose weight converges to $T$;

1581: then (by Lemma \ref{pathlemma})

1582: this sequence has some limit point, 

1583: itself a member of $\cC$ not containing $r$,

1584: which attains the weight $T$. But this contradicts the 

1585: uniqueness of $A^*$ established in Proposition

1586: \ref{uniquenessprop}).

1587: 

1588: If $\cC^{(n)}_{k_n}=\cC_{k_n}$, then

1589: \begin{align}

1590: \nonumber

1591: \max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}, r\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i

1592: &\leq

1593: \max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}_{k_n}, r\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i

1594: +\tS^{(n)}_{k_n}

1595: \\

1596: \nonumber

1597: &\leq

1598: \max_{A\in\cC_{k_n}, r\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i

1599: +\sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left[\tM^{(n)}_i - M_i\right]_+

1600: +\tS^{(n)}_{k_n}

1601: \\

1602: \label{ineq1}

1603: &\leq

1604: T_{(-r)} + 

1605: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left[ \tM^{(n)}_i -M_i \right]_+

1606: + \tS^{(n)}_{k_n},

1607: \\

1608: \intertext{and similarly}

1609: \label{ineq2}

1610: \max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}, r\in A} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i

1611: &\geq

1612: T -

1613: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left[ M_i - \tM^{(n)}_i  \right]_+

1614: - S_{k_n}.

1615: \end{align}

1616: If also $r\notin A^{(n)*}$, then 

1617: \[

1618: \max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}, r\notin A} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i

1619: \geq

1620: \max_{A\in\cC^{(n)}, r\in A} \sum_{i\in A} \tM^{(n)}_i,

1621: \]

1622: and using (\ref{ineq1}) and (\ref{ineq2}) we get 

1623: \[

1624: T-T_{(-r)}

1625: \leq

1626: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left| M_i - \tM^{(n)}_i  \right|

1627: + S_{k_n} + \tS^{(n)}_{k_n}

1628: \]

1629: So altogether we obtain

1630: \begin{multline*}

1631: \PP\left(r\in A^*, r\notin A^{(n)*}\right)

1632: \\

1633: \leq

1634: \PP\left(

1635: \cC_k^{(n)}\neq \cC_k

1636: \right)

1637: +

1638: \PP\left(

1639: 0<

1640: T-T_{(-r)}

1641: \leq

1642: \sum_{i=1}^{k_n} \left| M_i - \tM^{(n)}_i  \right|

1643: + S_{k_n} + \tS^{(n)}_{k_n}

1644: \right).

1645: \end{multline*}

1646: We have already observed above that the first probability on the RHS

1647: tends to 0 as $n\to\infty$. The same is true for the second probability

1648: on the RHS,

1649: since all the terms on the right of the inequality converge 

1650: to 0 in probability as $n\to\infty$, while the term in the middle of

1651: the inequality does not depend on $n$.

1652: Hence $\PP\left(r\in A^*, r\notin A^{(n)*}\right)\to 0$ as $n\to\infty$,

1653: as required.\enpf

1654: 

1655: We now turn to the convergence of the paths

1656: regarded as subsets of $[0,1]^2$.

1657: 

1658: First let $U^*=\bigcup_{i\in A^*} Y_i \cup \{(0,0), (1,1)\}$,

1659: and take its closure $\Ubar^*$.

1660: 

1661: We expect that $\Ubar^*$ is connected with

1662: probability 1, but we don't have a proof. To work around

1663: this, we will use the fact that, at least,

1664: there is a.s.\ a unique way to extend 

1665: $\Ubar^*$ to a connected set while preserving the increasing

1666: path property. (Here the increasing path property of a set 

1667: means that if $y$ and $y'$ are two elements of the set then $y\sim y'$).

1668: 

1669: To see this, first note that if $\Ubar^*$ does ``contain jumps'',

1670: then none of these jumps can span a rectangle of non-zero area.

1671: That is, with probability 1 there is no rectangle $R$ 

1672: of non-zero area such that $y\sim y'$ for all $y\in\Ubar^*$ 

1673: and $y'\in R$.

1674: 

1675: For if there were, then $R$ would certainly contain some 

1676: points $Y_j$; such $j$ could be added to $A^*$, 

1677: increasing the weight of the path by $M_j$; this contradicts

1678: the maximality of $A^*$.

1679: 

1680: So any jumps in $\Ubar^*$ consist only of horizontal or

1681: vertical line segments. These segments can all be added to $\Ubar^*$

1682: while still preserving the increasing path property, and

1683: this gives a connected set. Conversely, any connected increasing

1684: set containing $\Ubar^*$ must ``fill in'' these jumps.

1685: 

1686: Thus, define $P^*$ by setting $y\in P^*$ if:

1687: \begin{itemize}

1688: \item[(i)]$y\in\Ubar^*$, or

1689: \item[(ii)]there exists $y',y''\in\Ubar^*$ with either

1690: \begin{itemize}

1691: \item[(a)]$y'(1)=y(1)=y''(1)$, $y'(2)<y(2)<y''(2)$, or

1692: \item[(b)]$y'(2)=y(2)=y''(2)$, $y'(1)<y(1)<y''(1)$.

1693: \end{itemize}

1694: \end{itemize}

1695: 

1696: This set $P^*$ (which we conjecture to be equal to 

1697: the closure of $\bigcup_{i\in A^*} Y_i$ w.\ p.\ 1)

1698: provides the distributional limit we need.

1699: 

1700: For each $n$, we define the object representing

1701: the optimal path in the discrete problem indexed by $n$ as follows: 

1702: order the points $\{Y_i^{(n)}, i\in A^{(n)*}\}$

1703: in increasing order and join successive points by a straight line

1704: (horizontal or vertical, of length $1/n$). Call the 

1705: resulting path $P^{(n)*}$.

1706: 

1707: $P^*$ and $P^{(n)*}$ are regarded as subsets of $[0,1]^2$

1708: and we use the Hausdorff metric:

1709: \[

1710: d_H(P_1,P_2)=

1711: \sup_{x\in P_1}

1712: \inf_{y\in P_2}

1713: |x-y|

1714: +

1715: \sup_{x\in P_2}

1716: \inf_{y\in P_1}

1717: |x-y|.

1718: \]

1719: 

1720: 

1721: 

1722: 

1723: \begin{theorem}

1724: \label{paththeorem2}

1725: $P^{(n)*}\to P^*$ in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

1726: \end{theorem}

1727: 

1728: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

1729: Choose a probability space 

1730: on which the convergence in Theorem \ref{paththeorem}

1731: occurs almost surely. We will show that in this case

1732: $P^{(n)*}\to P^*$ a.s.\ also. 

1733: 

1734: First consider any point $y\in P^*$. We will show 

1735: that for all sufficiently large $n$ there is a point 

1736: of $P^{(n)*}$ within distance $\epsilon/2$ of $y$.

1737: 

1738: There are two cases to consider.

1739: 

1740: First, suppose that $y$ is a limit 

1741: of some sequence of points $Y_i\in A^*$. Choose

1742: some $Y_i$ which is with distance $\epsilon/4$.

1743: For large enough $n$, we have $Y_i^{(n)}\in A^{(n)*}$

1744: and $|Y_i^{(n)}-Y_i|<\epsilon/4$ and we are done.

1745: 

1746: Otherwise, $y$ is on a vertical or horizontal line

1747: between two points that \textit{are} limits

1748: of sequences $Y_i\in A^*$. Call these endpoints $y^-$ and $y^+$.

1749: For large enough $n$, there are $i^-$ and $i^+$ such that

1750: $Y_{i^-}, Y_{i^+}\in P^{(n)*}$ with 

1751: $|Y_{i^-}^{(n)}-y^-|<\epsilon/2$ and 

1752: $|Y_{i^+}^{(n)}-y^+|<\epsilon/2$, as above.

1753: Then by the increasing path property,

1754: the subpath of $P^{(n)*}$ joining $Y_{i^-}$ and $Y_{i^+}$

1755: passes within $\epsilon/2$ of every point on the

1756: line segment joining $y^-$ to $y^+$,

1757: and hence in particular within $\epsilon/2$ of $y$ as required.

1758: 

1759: Now for some $m\in\NN$ set $\epsilon=1/m$

1760: and consider an increasing sequence of points 

1761: $(0,0)=y^{(0)}, y^{(1)}, \dots, y^{(2m)}=(1,1)\in P^*$

1762: such that the $L_1$ distance $d_1(y^{(j)}, y^{(j+1)})$ between

1763: successive points is exactly $\epsilon$ for all $j$. 

1764: (This is possible since $P^*$ is an increasing path and connected).

1765: 

1766: Now for large enough $n$ there is a sequence 

1767: $\ty^{(0)}, \ty^{(1)}, \dots, \ty^{(2m)}$

1768: of points of $P^{(n)*}$ such that

1769: $d_1(\ty^{(j)}, y^{(j)})<\epsilon/2$ for all $j$. 

1770: Then necessarily $\ty^{(0)}, \ty^{(1)}, \dots, \ty^{(2m)}$

1771: is itself an increasing sequence 

1772: and $d_1(\ty^{(j)}, \ty^{(j+1)})<2\epsilon$ for all $j$.

1773: 

1774: Using the increasing path property for $P^*$, 

1775: we have that every point of $P^*$ is within $L_1$

1776: distance $\epsilon/2$ of one of the $y^{(j)}$. 

1777: Then since each $y^{(j)}$ is within $L_1$ 

1778: distance $\epsilon/2$ of a point of $P^{(n)*}$,

1779: we have that every point of $P^*$ is within $\epsilon$

1780: of $P^{(n)*}$. 

1781: 

1782: Similarly, the increasing path property for $P^{(n)*}$

1783: gives that every point of $P^{(n)*}$ is within 

1784: $L_1$ distance $\epsilon$ of one of the $\ty^{(j)}$,

1785: and thus in turn within distance $3\epsilon/2$ of 

1786: some point of $P^*$.

1787: 

1788: Hence $d_H(P^*, P^{(n)*})<5\epsilon/2$,

1789: for all large enough $n$. This works for any $\epsilon=1/m$,

1790: so $P^{(n)*}\to P^*$ as required.\enpf

1791: 

1792: \section{Stable process directed percolation}

1793: \label{stablesection}

1794: 

1795: In this section we consider a directed last-passage

1796: percolation model based on stable L\'evy processes.

1797: This is the stable version of the Brownian

1798: directed percolation problem considered in \cite{OcoYor, hmo}. 

1799: 

1800: For $n\in\NN$, $t>0$, consider the random variable

1801: \[ L(n,t) = \sup_{0=t_0 \leq t_1 \leq...\leq t_n=t} \sum_{i=1}^n

1802: S^i_{t_{i-1}t_i}, \]

1803: where $S^i_{st} = S^i_t-S^i_s$, and $S^i$ are i.i.d.\ $\alpha$-stable

1804: processes for some $\alpha\in(0,2)$.

1805: The Brownian version of this problem, in which the

1806: stable processes are replaced by Brownian motions, 

1807: gives a representation

1808: for the largest eigenvalue process in 

1809: ``Hermitian Brownian motion''

1810: (a matrix-valued process whose marginal at any fixed time has the 

1811: GUE distribution) 

1812: and has been much studied in various contexts

1813: (see for example \cite{GUEs, GraTraWid, hmo, OcoYor}). We do

1814: not have a random matrix interpretation of this stable process

1815: version; however, an interesting connection could be

1816: to the case of Wigner random matrices with heavy-tailed

1817: entries considered by Soshnikov in \cite{Soshnikovheavy},

1818: where a scaling is obtained for the largest eigenvalues 

1819: which corresponds to the one we have 

1820: observed for the heavy-tailed last-passage percolation problem.

1821: 

1822: We will show that the asymptotic behaviour of the distribution

1823: of $L(n,t)$, as $n$ becomes large, is again

1824: described by our continuous heavy-tailed last-passage

1825: directed percolation problem.

1826: Note that by scaling $L(n,tn) = t^{1/\alpha} L(n,n)$ in

1827: distribution and hence we can just consider $L(n,n)$.

1828: 

1829: The processes $S^i$ have jump measure 

1830: $c_+ x^{-\alpha-1}I_{x>0} +c_-|x|^{-\alpha-1}I_{x<0}$,

1831: for some $c_+>0$ and $c_-\geq 0$.

1832: The jumps play the role of weights for the percolation problem.

1833: 

1834: \begin{theorem}

1835: \[

1836: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L(n,n)\to T

1837: \] 

1838: in distribution as $n\to\infty$, where $T$ is the last-passage time

1839: in the continuous last-passage percolation model with index $\alpha$,

1840: defined at (\ref{Tdef}).

1841: \end{theorem}

1842: 

1843: A short argument is available in the case $\alpha<1$

1844: (making use of the fact that the sum of all positive weights 

1845: is finite), and we give this first. 

1846: 

1847: \subsection{Case $\alpha<1$}

1848: Let $M_1^{(n)}$, $M_2^{(n)}, \dots$

1849: be the set of positive jumps of the processes 

1850: $S^1$, $S^2,\dots,S^n$ on the interval $[0,n]$,

1851: written in descending order.

1852: 

1853: From the form of the jump measure, we can regard the ordered sequence

1854: of jumps as a Poisson random measure. Thus by a suitable

1855: transformation we can write the sequence of jumps in terms of a Poisson process and 

1856: have that for any $n$,

1857: \begin{multline*}

1858: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}

1859: \Big(M_1^{(n)}, M_2^{(n)},\dots,M_k^{(n)},\dots\Big)

1860: \\

1861: \stackrel{d}{=}

1862: \Big(W_1^{-1/\alpha},(W_1+W_2)^{-1/\alpha},

1863: \dots, 

1864: (W_1+\dots+W_k)^{-1/\alpha},

1865: \dots\Big),

1866: \end{multline*}

1867: where $W_i$ are i.i.d.\ exponential random variables with mean 1.

1868: 

1869: Now let $L^{(n)+}_k$ be the maximal

1870: weight of a path, if one ignores all the weights except the $k$

1871: largest positive weights. Just as in the discrete case,

1872: one can show that 

1873: \[

1874: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L_k^{(n)+}

1875: \to T_k

1876: \]

1877: in distribution as $n\to\infty$, 

1878: and one also has $T_k\to T$ in distribution

1879: as $k\to\infty$,

1880: where $T_k$ and $T$ are the last passage times

1881: for the continuous problem as defined before.

1882: 

1883: Now let $L^{(n)+}$ be the maximal weight

1884: of a path, if one considers all the positive

1885: weights but ignores all the negative ones. Then

1886: \[

1887: L^{(n)+} - L^{(n)+}_k

1888: \leq

1889: \sum_{r=k+1}^\infty M_r^{(n)}.

1890: \]

1891: Now the distribution of 

1892: $n^{-2/\alpha}\sum_{r=k+1}^\infty M_r^{(n)}$

1893: does not depend on $n$, and converges to $0$ 

1894: in distribution as $k\to\infty$

1895: (since the sum of all the positive weights is a.s.\

1896: finite). So we have

1897: \[

1898: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L^{(n)+}

1899: \to T

1900: \]

1901: in distribution.

1902: 

1903: Now consider the optimal path attaining $L^{(n)+}$.  Consider the sum

1904: of (the absolute values of) all the negative weights along the path;

1905: call it $S^{(n)-}$.  Since the positive and negative weights occur

1906: independently, $S^{(n)-}$ has just the same distribution as the sum of

1907: the negative weights for a single stable process between times $0$ and

1908: $n$.  This is finite and on the scale $n^{1/\alpha}$ (in fact, the

1909: distribution of $n^{-1/\alpha}S^{(n)-}$ is independent of $n$).  So

1910: certainly $n^{-2/\alpha}S^{(n)-}\to 0$ in distribution as

1911: $n\to\infty$.  Since $L^{(n)+}-S^{(n)-}\leq L(n,n)\leq L^{(n)+}$, we

1912: obtain

1913: \[

1914: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L(n,n)

1915: \to T

1916: \]

1917: in distribution as $n\to\infty$, as required.

1918: 

1919: \subsection{Case $1\leq \alpha<2$}

1920: 

1921: \noindent\textit{Lower bound:}

1922: 

1923: As before,

1924: \[

1925: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L_k^{(n)+}

1926: \to T_k

1927: \]

1928: in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

1929: 

1930: Now consider a path realising $L_k^{(n)+}$ in this way;

1931: (for definiteness, say the first such path in the

1932: lexicographic order).

1933: 

1934: Let $\tT^{(n)}_k$ be the total weight of this path,

1935: including all weights, and let 

1936: $\tS=\tT^{(n)}_k-L_k^{(n)+}$.

1937: 

1938: The distribution of $\tS$ can be described as follows. 

1939: Generate the $n$ independent processes $S^1,\dots, S^n$

1940: from time $0$ to time $n$. Remove 

1941: the $k$ largest positive jumps that occur in 

1942: the $n$ processes in time $[0,n]$. Then $\tS$ has

1943: the distribution of the altered value of $S^1_n$,

1944: after the $k$ largest jumps from the set of processes

1945: have been removed.

1946: 

1947: However, as $n\to\infty$, the probability 

1948: that any of the $k$ largest jumps occur in the process

1949: $S_1$ tends to 0 (it is no larger than $k/n$); so with

1950: high probability, the procedure in the previous paragraph

1951: does not alter the value of $S^1_n$.

1952: Thus the limit in distribution of $n^{-1/\alpha}\tS$

1953: is the distribution of $n^{-1/\alpha}S^1_n$

1954: (which is independent of $n$). In particular,

1955: $n^{-2/\alpha}\tS\to 0$ in probability.

1956: Thus, for any $k$,

1957: \begin{align*}

1958: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}\tT^{(n)}_k

1959: &=

1960: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}\tS+

1961: \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L_k^{(n)+}

1962: \\

1963: &\to T_k

1964: \end{align*}

1965: in distribution, as $n\to\infty$.

1966: Since $L(n,n)\geq \tT^{(n)}_k$ and $T_k\to T$ as $k\to\infty$,

1967: this establishes that $T$ is a lower bound 

1968: for the limit in distribution of 

1969: $\left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha}L(n,n)$.

1970: 

1971: \medskip

1972: 

1973: \noindent\textit{Upper bound:}

1974: 

1975: We first need a lemma on the tail behaviour

1976: of the difference between the supremum and infimum

1977: of the stable process on an interval:

1978: 

1979: \begin{lemma}\label{jumpuplemma}

1980: Let $S$ be a stable process with index $\alpha$ 

1981: and jump measure 

1982: $c_+ x^{-\alpha-1}I_{x>0} +c_-|x|^{-\alpha-1}I_{x<0}$,

1983: where $c_+>0$ and $c_-\geq 0$.

1984: Then 

1985: \[

1986: \PP\Big(\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq 1}\{S_t-S_s\} > x\Big)

1987: \sim \frac{c_+}{\alpha} x^{-\alpha}

1988: \]

1989: as $x\to\infty$. That is,

1990: the quantity $\sup_{0\leq s\leq t\leq 1}\{S_t-S_s\}$

1991: has the same positive tail behaviour

1992: as the size of the largest positive jump of $S$

1993: in $[0,1]$

1994: (which is also the same as the upper tail of 

1995: $S_1$ and of $\sup_{0\leq t\leq 1}S_t$).

1996: \end{lemma}

1997: 

1998: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

1999: Let the running infimum and supremum processes be denoted by $I_t =

2000: \inf\{S_s:0\leq s\leq t\}$ and $S^*_t = \sup\{S_s: 0\leq s\leq t\}$

2001: respectively. Consider the reflected process $X_t = S_t - I_t$. Our

2002: aim is to determine the tail behaviour of $X^*_1 = \sup\{X_t:0\leq

2003: t\leq 1\}$.  

2004: By Bertoin \cite{Bertoinbook}~Prop~VI.3, 

2005: we know that for fixed $t$, the distribution of $X_t$

2006: is the same as that of $S^*_t$. By standard results

2007: (e.g. \cite{Bertoinbook}~Prop~VIII.4) we have 

2008: \begin{equation}

2009: \PP(X_1>x) \sim \PP(S^*_1>x) \sim \frac{c_+}{\alpha} x^{-\alpha},

2010: \label{eq:tailasymp}

2011: \end{equation}

2012: as $x\to\infty$.

2013: 

2014: Thus we just need to show that $X^*_1$ has the same tail as $X_1$. 

2015: The proof is analogous to that of

2016: \cite{Bertoinbook}~Prop.~VIII.4, 

2017: %% once we note

2018: %% that the reflected process is Markov by

2019: %% \cite{Bertoinbook}~Prop~VI.1, and that from the scaling for the stable

2020: %% process,

2021: %% $S_{\lambda t} \stackrel{d}{=} \lambda^{1/\alpha} S_t$, 

2022: %% we have a scaling for the

2023: %% infimum and hence the reflected process itself has the scaling 

2024: %% $X_{\lambda t} \stackrel{d}{=} \lambda^{1/\alpha} X_t$.

2025: %% \enpf

2026: and we reproduce the argument 

2027: here. An easy consequence of (\ref{eq:tailasymp}) is that

2028: \[ 

2029: \liminf_{x\to\infty} \PP(X^*_1>x) x^\alpha \geq

2030: \frac{c_+}{\alpha}. 

2031: \]

2032: Now fix $\epsilon>0$ and note that the reflected process is Markov by

2033: \cite{Bertoinbook}~Prop~VI.1. As the stable process scales in that 

2034: $S_{\lambda t} \stackrel{d}{=} \lambda^{1/\alpha} S_t$, 

2035: this property will be inherited by the

2036: infimum and hence the reflected process itself, giving 

2037: $X_{\lambda t} \stackrel{d}{=} \lambda^{1/\alpha} X_t$.

2038: Since $S_t-X_t=I_t$ is decreasing in $t$, we also 

2039: have that $X_1-X_t\geq S_1-S_t$ for all $t<1$. 

2040: Applying these properties and denoting

2041: by $\tau_x$ the first hitting time of the interval $(x,\infty)$ by the

2042: reflected process $X$, we have

2043: \begin{align*}

2044: \PP\big(X_1>(1-\epsilon)x\big)

2045: &\geq

2046: \PP\big(X_1^*>x, X_1>(1-\epsilon)x\big)

2047: \\

2048: &\geq

2049: \int_0^1 \PP(\tau_x\in dt)\PP(X_1-X_t>-\epsilon x)

2050: \\

2051: &\geq

2052: \int_0^1 \PP(\tau_x\in dt)\PP(S_1-S_t>-\epsilon x)

2053: \\

2054: &=

2055: \int_0^1 \PP(\tau_x\in dt)\PP(S_{1-t}>-\epsilon x)

2056: \\

2057: &\geq

2058: \int_0^1 \PP(\tau_x\in dt)\PP(S_1>-\epsilon x)

2059: \\

2060: &=\PP(X_1^*>x)\PP(S_1>-\epsilon x).

2061: \end{align*}

2062: %

2063: %% \begin{eqnarray*}

2064: %% P(X_1>(1-\epsilon)x) &\geq & P(X^*_1>x,X_1>(1-\epsilon)x) \\ 

2065: %% &\geq & \int_0^1 P(X_{1-t}>-\epsilon x) P(\tau_x \in dt) \\

2066: %% &\geq & P(X^*_1>x) P(X_1>-\epsilon x).

2067: %% \end{eqnarray*}

2068: %

2069: As $\PP(S_1>-\epsilon x) \to 1$ as $x\to\infty$ we have that

2070: \[ 

2071: \limsup_{x\to\infty} P(X^*_1>x) x^{\alpha} \leq

2072: (1-\epsilon)^{-\alpha} c_+/\alpha, 

2073: \]

2074: and, as $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, we have the result.\enpf

2075: 

2076: Now for $1\leq i, j \leq n$, define

2077: \[

2078: X(i,j)=\sup_{j-1\leq s\leq t\leq j} \{S^i_t-S^i_s\}.

2079: \]

2080: Let $T(n,n)$ be the maximal passage time for the discrete

2081: model with weights $X(i,j)$.

2082: Then one can see by a direct sample path comparison that

2083: $L(n,n)\leq T(n,n)$.

2084: 

2085: Applying Lemma \ref{jumpuplemma}, 

2086: $a_N\sim \left(\frac{\alpha}{c_+}\right)^{1/\alpha}N^{1/\alpha}$,

2087: where $a_N=\inf\{x:\PP(X(i,j)>x\leq 1/N\}$.

2088: Thus, applying Theorem \ref{Ttheorem} for the discrete model,

2089: \[

2090: \left(\frac{c_+}{\alpha}\right)^{1/\alpha}n^{-2/\alpha} T(n,n)

2091: \to T

2092: \]

2093: in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

2094: This gives the required upper bound in distribution 

2095: for the limit of $L(n,n)$.

2096: 

2097: \section{The case $\alpha=0$: 

2098: convergence to the greedy path}

2099: \label{greedysection}

2100: 

2101: In this section we consider the 

2102: discrete last-passage percolation model in the

2103: case $\alpha=0$. The distribution

2104: $F$ is said to have a 

2105: \textit{slowly varying tail}: for all $t>0$, 

2106: \[

2107: \frac{1-F(tx)}{1-F(x)}\to 1 \textit{ as } x\to\infty;

2108: \]

2109: equivalently, 

2110: for all $s<1$,

2111: \begin{equation}

2112: \label{first}

2113: \frac{F^{-1}(1-sv)}{F^{-1}(1-v)}\to \infty \text{ as } v\downarrow0.

2114: \end{equation}

2115: 

2116: Now it is no longer possible to find a non-degenerate 

2117: limit in distribution for $T^{(n)}$ as we did 

2118: in Theorem \ref{Ttheorem}. 

2119: Let $M^{(n)}_1$ be the maximum of an i.i.d.\ sample from $F$

2120: of size $n^2$ as before. Let $b_n$ be any sequence of constants.

2121: Then any limit point in distribution of the sequence 

2122: $b_n^{-1} M^{(n)}_1$ must be concentrated on the set $\{0,\infty\}$.

2123: From Proposition \ref{greedyprop} below, the same is true

2124: if we replace $M^{(n)}_1$ by $T^{(n)}$.

2125: 

2126: However, convergence in distribution of the optimal

2127: paths can still be obtained. In fact, the form

2128: of the limiting distribution has a particularly

2129: simple description in terms of a ``greedy algorithm''.

2130: We give a multifractal analysis of this limiting object

2131: in Section \ref{greedysubsection}.

2132: 

2133: The limiting object is defined as follows.

2134: Given the locations $Y_1, Y_2,\dots$ i.i.d.\ uniform on $[0,1]^2$,

2135: let $\cC$, the set of increasing paths, be defined as at (\ref{cCdef}).

2136: We now define the 

2137: \textit{greedy path} $A^*=A^*(Y_1, Y_2, \dots)\in \cC$ 

2138: recursively as follows.

2139: Let $1\in A^*$ always, and then, 

2140: given $A^*\cap \{1,\dots,r\}$,

2141: let $r+1\in A^*$ if and only if $Y_{r+1}\sim Y_i$ for every

2142: $i\in A^*$, $i\leq r$.

2143: One can describe $A^*$ as the first member of $\cC$ in 

2144: the lexicographic order.

2145: 

2146: The discrete problem is defined in terms of the locations

2147: $(Y_i^{(n)})$ and weights $(M_i^{(n)})$ as before.

2148: Write $A^{(n)*}$ for the optimal path as in Section

2149: \ref{pathsection}. The following theorem

2150: gives the convergence of these optimal paths to the greedy path:

2151: 

2152: \begin{theorem}

2153: \label{slowtheorem}

2154: $\Big(\big(Y^{(n)}_i\big)_{i\in\NN}, A^{(n)*}\Big)

2155: \to

2156: \Big(\big(Y_i\big)_{i\in\NN}, A^{*}\Big)$

2157: in distribution as $n\to\infty$.

2158: \end{theorem}

2159: 

2160: Exactly as in Section \ref{paththeorem},

2161: one can also define $P^*$ and $P^{(n)*}$ 

2162: to represent the optimal paths regarded as subsets of $[0,1]^2$,

2163: and obtain the convergence in distribution of

2164: $P^{(n)*}$ to $P^*$ as $n\to\infty$ (under the Hausdorff metric).

2165: In fact, the situation is considerably simpler here;

2166: one can simply define $P^*$ to be the closure of

2167: $\bigcup_{i\in A^*} Y_i$, since by the results

2168: of Section \ref{greedysubsection} this set is connected w.p.\ 1.

2169: 

2170: Theorem \ref{slowtheorem} will follow from the next proposition:

2171: \begin{proposition}

2172: \label{greedyprop}

2173: For all $r$,

2174: \[

2175: \PP\left(M^{(n)}_r > \sum_{i=r+1}^{n^2} M^{(n)}_i \right)\to 1

2176: \text{ as } n\to\infty.

2177: \]

2178: \end{proposition}

2179: 

2180: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Theorem \ref{slowtheorem}}:

2181: Fix some $\epsilon>0$. As in Proposition \ref{coupledprop}, 

2182: for $n$ large enough,

2183: we can find a coupling such that, with probability at least $1-\epsilon$,

2184: \begin{gather}

2185: \nonumber

2186: \sum_{i=1}^k \left\| Y_i - Y^{(n)}_i \right\| < \epsilon

2187: \\

2188: \intertext{and}

2189: \label{thesame}

2190: \cC_k^{(n)}=\cC_k

2191: \end{gather}

2192: Suppose that (\ref{thesame}) holds and also that, for all $r\leq k$,

2193: $M^{(n)}_r > \sum_{i=r+1}^{n^2} M^{(n)}_i$.

2194: Then indeed 

2195: \begin{equation}

2196: \label{thesame2}

2197: A^{(n)*}\intersect\{1,\dots,k\} = A^*\intersect\{1,\dots,k\},

2198: \end{equation}

2199: where $A^*$ is the ``greedy path''. 

2200: Then using Proposition \ref{greedyprop},

2201: we can find $n$ such that

2202: (\ref{thesame2}) holds 

2203: with probability at least $1-2\epsilon$.

2204: This gives the convergence in distribution in Theorem 

2205: \ref{slowtheorem}.~$\hfill\Box$

2206: 

2207: \subsection{Proof of Proposition \ref{greedyprop}}

2208: 

2209: \begin{lemma}

2210: \label{theme}

2211: Let $\epsilon>0$ and $C>0$.

2212: There exists $U(C,\epsilon)<1$ such that if 

2213: $U(C,\epsilon)<u_1<(1+\epsilon)u_2-\epsilon$, then

2214: \[

2215: F^{-1}(u_1)<F^{-1}(u_2)(1-u_1)^{-C}(1-u_2)^{C}.

2216: \]

2217: \end{lemma}

2218: 

2219: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

2220: Let $t=(1+\epsilon)^{2C}$.

2221: From (\ref{first})

2222: there exists $V>0$ such that for all 

2223: $v<V$,

2224: \[

2225: \frac{F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{v}{1+\epsilon}\right)}{F^{-1}(1-v)}>t.

2226: \]

2227: Iterating,

2228: \[

2229: \frac{F^{-1}\left(1-\frac{v}{(1+\epsilon)^m}\right)}{F^{-1}(1-v)}>t^m,

2230: \text{ for all }m\in\NN,

2231: \]

2232: and so in fact, for any $v_2<v_1<V$,

2233: \[

2234: \frac{F^{-1}(1-v_2)}{F^{-1}(1-v_1)}

2235: >t^{\left\lfloor

2236: \log_{1+\epsilon}\frac{v_1}{v_2}\right\rfloor}.

2237: \]

2238: Putting $u_1=1-v_1$, $u_2=1-v_2$ and $U(C,\epsilon)=1-V$,

2239: we have that for $U(C,\epsilon)<u_1<u_2$,

2240: \[

2241: F^{-1}(u_2)>

2242: t^{

2243: \left\lfloor

2244: \log_{1+\epsilon}\frac{1-u_1}{1-u_2}\right\rfloor}

2245: F^{-1}(u_1).

2246: \]

2247: Now whenever $z\geq 1$, then $\lfloor z\rfloor\geq z/2$,

2248: so restricting to $(1-u_1)>(1+\epsilon)(1-u_2)$

2249: we get

2250: \[

2251: F^{-1}(u_2) > t^{

2252: \frac{1}{2}\log_{1+\epsilon}\frac{1-u_1}{1-u_2}}

2253: F^{-1}(u_1),

2254: \]

2255: which rearranges to the desired result.$\hfill\Box$

2256: 

2257: \begin{lemma}

2258: \label{variation}

2259: Fix $\epsilon>0$ and $C>0$. 

2260: If $u_2\in(0,1)$ is sufficiently close to 1,

2261: then for all $u_1$ with 

2262: $0<u_1<(1+\epsilon)u_2-\epsilon$,

2263: \[

2264: F^{-1}(u_1)<F^{-1}(u_2)(1-u_1)^{-C}(1-u_2)^{C}.

2265: \]

2266: \end{lemma}

2267: 

2268: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

2269: From Lemma \ref{theme}, we already know that this is true

2270: when $u_1>U(C,\epsilon)$. Now if $u_1\leq U(C,\epsilon)$, 

2271: then $F^{-1}(u_1)\leq F^{-1}(U(C,\epsilon))$. So it will suffice

2272: to show that for $u_2$ sufficiently close to 1, the RHS is always 

2273: at least $F^{-1}(U(C,\epsilon))$. In fact, we will show 

2274: that the RHS tends to $\infty$ as $u_2\uparrow 1$, uniformly in $u_1$.

2275: 

2276: For any $u_2$, the RHS is minimised by $u_1=0$. 

2277: So we wish to show that 

2278: \begin{equation}

2279: \label{needed}

2280: F^{-1}(u_2)(1-u_2)^{C}

2281: \to\infty \text{ as } u_2\uparrow1.

2282: \end{equation}

2283: 

2284: %To do this, we reuse Lemma \ref{theme} but replacing $t$ by some value

2285: %$\tildet>t$ and $u_1$ by some $\tu_1>V(\tildet,\epsilon)$. 

2286: 

2287: Fix $\tu_1>U(2C,\epsilon)$. Then Lemma \ref{theme} gives,

2288: for $u_2$ sufficiently close to 1,

2289: \begin{align*}

2290: F^{-1}(u_2)

2291: &\geq F^{-1}(\tu_1)

2292: (1-\tu_1)^{2C}(1-u_2)^{-2C}

2293: \\

2294: &=c(1-u_2)^{-2C}

2295: \end{align*}

2296: for some constant $c$.  This gives the desired convergence to $\infty$

2297: in (\ref{needed}).~$\hfill\Box$

2298: 

2299: \begin{lemma}

2300: \label{expectation}

2301: Let the r.v.\ $U$ be uniform on $(0,1)$. 

2302: \[ \lim_{u\to1}\frac{\EE(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u)}{F^{-1}(u)(1-u)}

2303: =0. \]

2304: \end{lemma}

2305: 

2306: \noindent\textit{Proof:}

2307: Take any $C>0$ and $\epsilon>0$.

2308: If $u$ is close enough to 1, then using Lemma \ref{variation},

2309: \begin{align*}

2310: \EE(F^{-1}(U); U\leq u) &= \int_0^u F^{-1}(v)dv \\

2311: &\leq \int_0^{(1+\epsilon)u-\epsilon} F^{-1}(u)(1-v)^{-C}(1-u)^{C}dv +

2312: \int_{(1+\epsilon)u-\epsilon}^u F^{-1}(u)dv \\

2313: &= F^{-1}(u)\left\{(1-u)^{C}\frac{(1+\epsilon)(1-u)^{-C+1}}{C-1} +

2314: \epsilon(1-u) \right\} \\

2315: &=F^{-1}(u)(1-u)\left\{\frac{(1+\epsilon)^{-C+1}}{C-1}+\epsilon \right\}.

2316: \end{align*}

2317: 

2318: We can now choose $\epsilon$ as small as desired, 

2319: and then $C$ as large as desired, to give an upper 

2320: bound on 

2321: \[ \limsup_{u\to1}\frac{\EE(F^{-1}(U); U\leq u)}{F^{-1}(u)(1-u)} \]

2322: which is arbitrarily close to 0.

2323: 

2324: Finally, for $u\geq 1/2$, 

2325: \[ \EE(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u) \leq 2\EE(F^{-1}(U);U\leq u) \]

2326: and the result follows.$\hfill\Box$

2327: 

2328: \medskip

2329: 

2330: \noindent\textbf{Proof of Proposition \ref{greedyprop}}:

2331: We use the representation  

2332: \[

2333: \left(

2334: M^{(n)}_1,\dots,M^{(n)}_{n^2}

2335: \right)

2336: =

2337: \left(

2338: F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_1,\dots, U^{(n)}_{n^2})

2339: \right),

2340: \]

2341: where $(U^{(n)}_1,\dots, U^{(n)}_{n^2})$

2342: are the order statistics of an i.i.d.\ sample of size $n^2$ from 

2343: the uniform distribution on $(0,1)$, written

2344: in decreasing order.

2345: 

2346: We need to show that

2347: \[ \PP\left( \sum_{m=r+1}^{n^2} F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_m)\geq

2348: F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_r)\right)\to 0 \text{ as } n\to\infty. \]

2349: Let $R>0$ and suppose that $u>1-R/n^2$.

2350: Then

2351: \begin{align}

2352: \nonumber

2353: \frac{n^2\EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)}{F^{-1}(u)}

2354: &=\frac{R \EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)}{F^{-1}(u)R/n^2} \\

2355: \nonumber

2356: &\leq \frac{R\EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)}{F^{-1}(u)(1-u)} \\

2357: \label{bound}

2358: &\leq R\sup_{u>1-R/n^2}\frac{\EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)}

2359: {F^{-1}(u)(1-u)}.

2360: \end{align}

2361: Now for (almost) all $u$,

2362: \[

2363: \EE\left(\sum_{m=r+1}^{n^2} F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_m)

2364: \bigg\vert

2365: U^{(n)}_r=u\right)

2366: =(n^2-r)\EE\left(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\right),

2367: \]

2368: so for (almost) all $u>1-R/n^2$ we have, from Markov's inequality,

2369: \begin{multline*}

2370: \PP\left(\sum_{m=r+1}^{n^2} F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_m)\geq F^{-1}(M^{(n)}_r)

2371: \bigg\vert U^{(n)}_r=u

2372: \right)

2373: \\

2374: \begin{aligned}

2375: &\leq

2376: \frac{1}{F^{-1}(u)}

2377: \EE\left(\sum_{m=r+1}^{n^2} F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_m)

2378: \bigg\vert

2379: U^{(n)}_r=u\right)

2380: \\

2381: &\leq

2382: n^2

2383: \frac{

2384: \EE\left(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\right)

2385: }

2386: {F^{-1}(u)}

2387: \\

2388: &\leq

2389: R\sup_{u>1-R/n^2}

2390: \frac{

2391: \EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)

2392: }

2393: {F^{-1}(u)(1-u)}

2394: \end{aligned}\end{multline*}

2395: using (\ref{bound}).

2396: 

2397: So in fact, integrating over $u>1-R/n^2$,

2398: \begin{multline*}

2399: \PP\left(\sum_{m=r+1}^{n^2} F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_m)\geq F^{-1}(M^{(n)}_r)

2400: \bigg\vert U^{(n)}_r>1-R/n^2

2401: \right)

2402: \\

2403: \leq

2404: R\sup_{u>1-R/n^2}

2405: \frac{

2406: \EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)

2407: }

2408: {F^{-1}(u)(1-u)}.

2409: \end{multline*}

2410: Then

2411: \begin{multline*}

2412: \limsup_{n\to\infty}

2413: \PP\left(\sum_{m=r+1}^{n^2} F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_m)\geq F^{-1}(U^{(n)}_r)\right)

2414: \\

2415: \leq

2416: \limsup_{n\to\infty}

2417: \PP\left(U^{(n)}_r\leq 1-R/n^2\right)

2418: +\limsup_{n\to\infty}

2419: R\sup_{u>1-R/n^2}

2420: \frac{

2421: \EE\big(F^{-1}(U)\given U\leq u\big)

2422: }

2423: {F^{-1}(u)(1-u)}.

2424: \end{multline*}

2425: The second term is 0 by Lemma \ref{expectation}, for every $R$.

2426: The first term is the probability $\PP(B_{n^2,R/n^2}\leq r-1)$,

2427: where $B_{n^2,R/n^2}$ is a binomial $(n^2,R/n^2)$ random variable.

2428: This converges as $n\to\infty$ to the probability

2429: $\PP(P_R\leq r-1)$ where $P_R$ is a Poisson mean $R$ random 

2430: variable. Thus this probability can be made as small as desired by choosing $R$

2431: large, and hence the limsup is in fact $0$ as required.$\hfill\Box$

2432: 

2433: 

2434: 

2435: \subsection{The properties of the greedy path}

2436: \label{greedysubsection}

2437: 

2438: \begin{figure}[t]

2439: \centering

2440: \epsfig{figure=oo.ps, angle=270, width=1.3\linewidth}

2441: \caption{A simulation from the distribution of the  ``greedy path'' 

2442: which occurs as the limit of the distribution of optimal paths

2443: in the case $\alpha=0$.

2444: \label{greedyfig}}

2445: \end{figure}

2446: 

2447: In this section we discuss the properties of the greedy path

2448: which we have obtained as a distributional limit 

2449: of the optimal path for the discrete problem when $\alpha=0$. 

2450: The path can be regarded as a function $y=G(x)$ from $[0,1]$

2451: to itself in a natural way 

2452: (specifically, one could define

2453: $G(x)=\sup\{y: Y_i=(x',y) \text{ for some } x'\leq x 

2454: \text{ and some } i\in A^*\}$. 

2455: See Figure \ref{greedyfig} for a realisation of the greedy path). 

2456: This function $G$ is monotone non-decreasing, and hence defines

2457: a measure $\mu$ on $[0,1]$. 

2458: We will show that $\mu$ 

2459: is a random self-similar measure which is singular with

2460: respect to Lebesgue measure, and we will be able to compute its

2461: multifractal spectrum.

2462: 

2463: We recall the definition of the multifractal spectrum for our

2464: setting. Let $B_r(x)$

2465: denote the ball of radius $r$ around the point $x\in \br$. 

2466: For $a\geq 0$,

2467: we define $E_a$, the set of

2468: points at which the measure has local dimension $a$ by

2469: \[ E_{a} = \left\{ x: \lim_{r\downarrow 0} \frac{\log

2470:   \mu(B_r(x))}{\log r} = a \right\}. \]

2471: The multifractal spectrum is then defined to be

2472: \[ f(a) = \dim_H(E_{a}), \]

2473: where $\dim_H(A)$ denotes the Hausdorff dimension of a set $A$. In our

2474: setting we have 

2475: \[ E_{a} = \left\{x\in [0,1]: \lim_{r\downarrow 0}

2476: \frac{\log(G(x+r)-G(x-r))}{\log r} = a \right\}. \]

2477: 

2478: In particular we note that if $\mu$ had a density with respect to

2479: Lebesgue measure, then the spectrum would be the function 

2480: $f(a)=0$ for all $a\neq 1$ and $f(1)=1$.

2481: 

2482: There are a number of papers making rigorous the 

2483: \textit{multifractal formalism}, the heuristic argument

2484: for computing the multifractal spectrum in terms of the Legendre

2485: transform of the moment measures, and we will be able to set our

2486: measure in a framework within which we can apply this formalism. The

2487: study of the multifractal spectrum for random self-similar measures is

2488: the topic of \cite{fal, ap, bhj} where the underlying assumptions are

2489: successively weakened.  

2490: 

2491: A \textit{scaling law} on a space $E$ consists of a probability space $(\Omega,

2492: \cf, \bp)$ and for each $\omega\in \Omega$ a collection of weights and

2493: maps $(\phi_1(\omega),p_1(\omega),\dots,\phi_N(\omega),p_N(\omega))$,

2494: where $p_i\in \br_+$ and $\phi_i:E \to E$ is a contraction with

2495: Lipschitz constant $r_i$. For a given scaling law a random

2496: self-similar measure is 

2497: a measure $\mu$ which satisfies the distributional equality

2498: \[ \mu(\cdot) = \sum_{i=1}^N p_i \mu_i (\phi_i^{-1}(\cdot)), \]

2499: where $\mu_i$ are i.i.d.\ copies of $\mu$ 

2500: (independent of the weights and maps).

2501: The support of the measure is typically a random self-similar set.

2502: 

2503: The multifractal formalism enables the

2504: multifractal spectrum for the random self-similar measure to be

2505: calculated in the following way. Let $m(q,\theta) = E( \sum_i p_i^q

2506: r_i^{\theta})$ and $\beta(q) = \inf\{\theta:m(q,\theta)\leq 1\}$. 

2507: Under the formalism the multifractal spectrum is the Legendre transform of

2508: $\beta(q)$,

2509: \begin{equation}

2510:  f(a) = \inf_{q\in\br}\{a q + \beta(q)\}. \label{eq:multform}

2511: \end{equation}

2512: We will now give a more formal version.

2513: 

2514: We introduce a little notation. 

2515: We write $\cT_n = \{1,\dots,N\}^n$ for

2516: the sequences which index the sets after $n$ applications of the scaling

2517: law, and $\cT$ for the tree 

2518: $\cup_{n=0}^{\infty} \cT_n$. 

2519: Let $(\Omega^{\otimes \cT},

2520: \cf^{\otimes \cT}, \bp^{\otimes\cT})$ denote the product probability space for

2521: random variables on the tree; for each node,

2522: we have an independent copy of the scaling law.

2523: Now for each $\bfi\in\cT_n$, define

2524: \begin{align*}

2525: p_{\bfi} = 

2526: p_{i_1}(\omega_{\emptyset})p_{i_2}(\omega_{i_1})\dots 

2527: p_{i_n}(\omega_{i_1 i_2\dots i_{n-1}}) 

2528: \\

2529: \intertext{and}

2530: r_{\bfi} = 

2531: r_{i_1}(\omega_{\emptyset})r_{i_2}(\omega_{i_1})\dots 

2532: r_{i_n}(\omega_{i_1 i_2\dots i_{n-1}}).

2533: \end{align*}

2534: The total mass of the random measure

2535: over the unit interval is given by 

2536: $W = \lim_{n\toi} \sum_{\bfi\in\cT_{n}} p_{\bfi}$. 

2537: In our setting we will consider random

2538: probability measures, so that $W=1$. 

2539: The other limit random variable we need is

2540: is $W(q) =\lim_{n\to\infty} W_n(q)$ where 

2541: $W_n(q) = \sum_{\bfi\in\cT_n} p_{\bfi}^q r_{\bfi}^{\beta}$. 

2542: 

2543: We also define the set $I_\beta\subseteq\RR$ as follows:

2544: $q*\in I_\beta$ if, for some $a\geq0$, 

2545: the infimum $\inf_{q\in\RR}\{aq+\beta(q)\}$ is non-negative 

2546: and is achieved at $q*$.

2547: 

2548: Finally the \textit{strong open set condition}

2549: is that there is an open set $O$ such that,

2550: with probability 1, one has that 

2551: $\phi_i(O)\cap\phi_j(O)=\emptyset$ for $i\neq j$, that $\cup_{i=1}^N

2552: \phi_i(O) \subset O$ and that $\mu(O)>0$. 

2553: 

2554: We now state a

2555: version of the main result of \cite{bhj} which can be applied in our

2556: setting. 

2557: 

2558: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:mf}

2559: Let $\mu$ be a random self-similar probability measure satisfying the 

2560: strong open set condition. If the following three sets of

2561: conditions are satisfied: 

2562: \begin{enumerate}

2563: \item $-\infty< \be \sum_i p_i\log p_i <0$;

2564: \item For all $q\in I_\beta$, 

2565: $\be \sum_i (\log p_i) p_i^q r_i^{\beta(q)}<\infty$ 

2566: and 

2567: $\be \sum_i (\log r_i) p_i^q r_i^{\beta(q)}<\infty$;

2568: \item  

2569: For all $q\in I_\beta$,

2570: $\be 

2571: \sum_i \left((\log p_i)^2 + (\log r_i)^2\right) p_i^q r_i^{\beta(q)}<\infty$

2572: and 

2573: $\be W(q) \log_+W(q)<\infty$; 

2574: \end{enumerate}

2575: then the multifractal formalism holds in the following sense.

2576: Define 

2577: \[ \beta^*(a) = \inf_{q\in \br}\{ a q + \beta(q)\}. \]

2578: Then for any $a\geq0$,

2579: \[ f(a) = \max \{ \beta^*(a), 0\},\]

2580: with probability 1, and 

2581: $E_a = \emptyset$ with probability 1 if 

2582: $\beta^*(a)<0$. 

2583: \end{lemma}

2584: 

2585: We now return to the measure arising from our greedy path. 

2586: From the definition, we can describe the greedy path 

2587: recursively as follows: choose a point $Y=(Y(1), Y(2))$ uniformly in 

2588: the box $[0,1]^2$. Then the original path

2589: is the union of two independent greedy paths, 

2590: one scaled to lie in $[0,Y(1)]\times[0,Y(2)]$ 

2591: and the other to lie in $[Y(1),1]\times[Y(2),1]$.

2592: From this representation we can regard the induced measure

2593: as a random self-similar measure for a scaling law.

2594: Let $V$ and $\tV$ be independent uniform random variables.

2595: Then the scaling law has 

2596: $N=2$ with the set of weights

2597: $(p_1,p_2)=(\tV,1-\tV)$ and the set of contractions $(\phi_1,\phi_2)$,

2598: where $\phi_1(x) = Vx$ has contraction factor $r_1=V$ and $\phi_2(x) =

2599: 1-(1-V)x$ has contraction factor $r_2=1-V$.

2600: Then the random self-similar measure $\mu$ satisfies

2601: $\mu(\cdot) = \sum_{i=1}^2 p_i \mu_i(\phi^{-1}_i(\cdot))$ in distribution. 

2602: From the construction it is clear that the measure is a probability

2603: measure whose support is the unit interval. 

2604: 

2605: We note that our measure does not fit into the framework of \cite{fal}

2606: or \cite{ap}. The interval does not satisfy the strong separation

2607: condition as required in \cite{fal} (for a definition see \cite{fal})

2608: but instead it satisfies the strong open set condition with

2609: $O=(0,1)$. This ensures that the overlap between a pair of

2610: contractions applied to the unit interval occurs at one point.

2611: It also uses uniform random variables for the contraction ratios and

2612: therefore there is no strictly positive lower bound on the contraction

2613: ratios as required in \cite{ap}.

2614: 

2615: \begin{theorem}\label{thm:mfs}

2616: The measure corresponding to the greedy path has for, any given $a\geq 0$,

2617: with probability 1,

2618: \[ f(a) = \left\{ \begin{array}{cl} \sqrt{8a} - a -1, &

2619:   3-2\sqrt{2} \leq a \leq 3+2\sqrt{2}, \\ 0, & \mbox{ otherwise.}

2620:   \end{array} \right. \] 

2621: If $a\in[0,3-2\sqrt{2})\cup(3+2\sqrt{2},\infty)$ then $E_a=\emptyset$ 

2622: with probability 1.

2623: \end{theorem}

2624: 

2625: \noindent

2626: {\it Proof:}

2627: We determine the multifractal spectrum using the multifractal

2628: formalism. We need to consider $m(q,\theta) =

2629: E(\tV^q V^\theta + (1-\tV)^q (1-V)^\theta)$ and $\beta(q) =

2630: \inf\{\theta:m(q,\theta)\leq 1\}$. It is straightforward to compute

2631: these quantities and we have

2632: \[ m(q,\theta) = 2\int_0^1 y^q dy \int_0^1 x^\theta dx =

2633: \frac2{(1+q)(1+\theta)} \mbox{ for $q>-1, \theta>-1$}. \]

2634: Thus

2635: \[ \beta(q) = \frac2{q+1} -1, \]

2636: and we can calculate that 

2637: \[

2638: \beta^*(a)=\sqrt{8a}-a-1

2639: \]

2640: for all $a\geq 0$.

2641: We have that $\beta^*(a)$ is non-negative on the interval

2642: $[3-2\sqrt2, 3+2\sqrt2]$ and negative elsewhere. 

2643: Hence, if we can establish the three conditions of

2644: Lemma~\ref{lem:mf}, to justify the formalism, we will have proved our

2645: theorem.

2646: 

2647: Another calculation gives that $I_\beta=[1-\sqrt2,1+\sqrt2]\subset(-1/2,3)$,

2648: and that for all $q\in I_\beta$, one also has $\beta(q)\in(-1/2,3)$.

2649: 

2650: For condition (1), we can compute $\be \sum_i p_i\log p_i = -1/2$.

2651: 

2652: For (2) straightforward calculations give  $\be \sum_i (\log p_i) p_i^q

2653: r_i^{\beta} = 2((q+1)^2(1+\beta))^{-1}<\infty$ and $\be \sum_i (\log r_i) p_i^q

2654: r_i^{\beta} = 2((q+1)(1+\beta)^2)^{-1}<\infty$, for all $q>-1, \beta>-1$.

2655: 

2656: Finally for the conditions (3) we have to do some work.

2657: It is easy to calculate the first condition

2658: \[ \be \sum_i \left((\log p_i)^2 + (\log r_i)^2\right) p_i^q

2659: r_i^{\beta} = \frac{2}{(1+q)^3(1+\beta)} +

2660: \frac{2}{(1+q)(1+\beta)^3}<\infty, \]

2661: for $q>-1,\beta>-1$.

2662: 

2663: Thus we only have to verify the final condition.

2664: 

2665: We begin by observing that all we need is to prove that for some

2666: $\epsilon>0$, $\be W(q)^{1+\epsilon}<\infty$ for each $q$. To do this

2667: we will show that $\be W_n(q)^{1+\epsilon}$ converges.  First we

2668: observe that $W_n(q)$ is a martingale by the definition of $\beta(q)$ 

2669: and we compute the bracket process

2670: \begin{eqnarray*} 

2671: [W(q)]_n &=& 

2672: \sum_{i=1}^n \be \Big(\big(W_i(q)-W_{i-1}(q)\big)^2 | \cf_{i-1}\Big) 

2673: \\

2674:  &=& \sum_{i=1}^n \be \left(\left(\sum_{j\in \cT_{i-1}} p_j^qr_j^{\beta(q)}

2675:  (\chi_j-1)\right)^2\Big| \cf_{i-1}\right), 

2676: \end{eqnarray*}

2677: where $\chi_j = \tV_j^qV_j^{\beta(q)} + (1-\tV_j)^q(1-V_j)^{\beta(q)}$ and the

2678: $(V_j,\tV_j)$ are independent of each other and independent over $j$. By

2679: definition of $\beta$ we know that $\be \chi_j = 1$ and we can also

2680: compute 

2681: \[ \be \chi_j^2 = \frac{2}{(1+2q)(1+2\beta)} +

2682: 2\frac{\Gamma(q+1)^2}{\Gamma(2q+2)}

2683: \frac{\Gamma(\beta+1)^2}{\Gamma(2\beta+2)}. \]

2684: One can easily check that this quantity is finite over 

2685: $q$ and $\beta$ in $(-1/2,3)$, and hence for all $q\in I_\beta$.

2686: Thus we have

2687: \[ [W(q)]_n = \sum_{i=1}^n W_{i-1}(2q,2\beta) (\be \chi^2-1), \]

2688: where we write $W_n(a,b) = \sum_{\bfi\in\cT_n} p_{\bfi}^a r_{\bfi}^b$.

2689: 

2690: With the bracket process we can control the moments of the martingale

2691: as for any $\gamma\geq 1$ there is a constant $c_{\gamma}$ such that

2692: \[ \be W_n(q)^\gamma \leq c_{\gamma} \be [W(q)]_n^{\gamma/2}. \]

2693: Thus we need to compute the moments of the bracket process. As we will take

2694: $1<\gamma<2$ and all terms in the sum are positive, straightforward estimates give  

2695: \begin{eqnarray*}

2696: \be [W(q)]_n^{\gamma/2} &=& \be(\sum_{i=1}^n W_{i-1}(2q,2\beta) (\be

2697: \chi^2-1))^{\gamma/2} \\

2698: &\leq& \be \sum_{i=1}^n W_{i-1}(2q,2\beta)^{\gamma/2} (\be

2699: \chi^2-1)^{\gamma/2} \\

2700: &\leq& \sum_{i=1}^n \be W_{i-1}(\gamma q,\gamma\beta) (\be

2701: \chi^2-1)^{\gamma/2}.

2702: \end{eqnarray*}

2703: Thus we just need to find $\be W_i(\gamma q, \gamma\beta) = (\be(

2704: \tV^{\gamma q}V^{\gamma\beta} + (1-\tV)^{\gamma

2705:   q}(1-V)^{\gamma\beta}))^i$. Integration gives

2706: \[ \be W_i(\gamma q, \gamma\beta) = \left(\frac{2}{(1+\gamma

2707:   q)(1+\gamma\beta)}\right)^i = \left(\frac{2(1+q)}{(1+\gamma

2708:   q)(1+q+\gamma(1-q))}\right)^i. \]

2709: Thus our result will hold if we can establish that over the range of

2710:   $q$, we can find a $\gamma>1$ such that

2711: \[ \frac{2(1+q)}{(1+\gamma q)(1+q+\gamma(1-q))} < 1. \]

2712: A numerical calculation with the quadratic formula shows that this is

2713: the case and hence we have our result. \enpf

2714: 

2715: The explicit form of the spectrum shows that $f(a)>0$ for

2716: $3-2\sqrt{2}<a<3+2\sqrt{2}$. We also observe that the set of

2717: points for which $a=2$ has full dimension 1. The next result

2718: shows that the measure corresponding to the path is ``singular'':

2719: 

2720: \begin{corollary}

2721: With probability 1, the greedy path is continuous and strictly increasing, 

2722: with zero derivative almost everywhere. 

2723: \end{corollary}

2724: 

2725: \noindent

2726: \emph{Proof:} 

2727: These properties can be proved fairly directly from 

2728: the construction of the greedy path, but here we 

2729: deduce them immediately from the multifractal spectrum. 

2730: 

2731: By construction, the distribution of the path is symmetric in

2732: the $x$ and $y$ coordinates; hence the continuity property 

2733: and the property that the path is strictly increasing are equivalent. 

2734: 

2735: Any point of discontinuity of the path belongs to the set $E_0$,

2736: by definition. But from Theorem \ref{thm:mfs} we have that

2737: $E_0$ is a.s.\ empty, so the path is a.s.\ continuous as desired.

2738: 

2739: For the derivative, note that 

2740: as $G$ is a distribution function

2741: it is almost everywhere differentiable with non-negative derivative. 

2742: Let $D_1$ denote the set of points where the path is differentiable

2743: and has strictly positive derivative.

2744: It is straightforward to see that $D_1\subset E_1$. 

2745: Thus as $f(1) = \sqrt{8}-2<1$, $\bp-a.s.$, 

2746: we have that the Lebesgue measure of $D_1$ is 0 with probability 1. \enpf

2747: 

2748: \section{Last-passage random fields and an Airy process}

2749: \label{Airysection}

2750: 

2751: \begin{figure}[ht]

2752: \centering

2753: \epsfig{figure=1.0a.eps, width=0.85\linewidth}

2754: \caption{Figures \ref{Airyfig1}-\ref{Airyfig3}

2755: show simulations of the heavy-tailed Airy process $H_t$ for

2756: three different values of $\alpha$. Here $\alpha=1$.

2757: \label{Airyfig1}}

2758: \end{figure}

2759: \begin{figure}[ht]

2760: \centering

2761: \epsfig{figure=1.5a.eps, width=0.85\linewidth}

2762: \caption{The heavy-tailed 

2763: Airy process $H_t$ in the case $\alpha=1.5$.\label{Airyfig2}}

2764: \end{figure}

2765: \begin{figure}[ht]

2766: \centering

2767: \epsfig{figure=1.99a.eps, width=0.85\linewidth}

2768: \caption{The heavy-tailed Airy process $H_t$ 

2769: in the case $\alpha=1.99$.\label{Airyfig3}}

2770: \end{figure}

2771: 

2772: In this section we consider the extension of the results to the case

2773: of a random field. To do this we give a Poisson random measure

2774: construction of the continuous limit model.

2775: 

2776: Let $\mu$ denote a Poisson random measure on $\br^3_+$ with intensity

2777: measure 

2778: $\lambda(dx\,dy\,dz) = dx\,dy\,\alpha z^{-\alpha-1} dz$. That is, if

2779: $N(x,y,z) = \mu((0,x)\times(0,y)\times (z,\infty))= \int_0^x \int_0^y

2780: \int_z^{\infty} \mu(dx\,dy\,dz)$ denotes the

2781: number of points in $(0,x)\times(0,y)\times (z,\infty)$, then this has

2782: a Poisson distribution with mean $\be N(x,y,z) = xy z^{-\alpha}$,

2783: and the number of points in disjoint sets are independent.

2784: 

2785: We can now extend our limiting model to this setting. To relate this

2786: to our original model we can consider the unit square in $\br_+^2$ and

2787: order the points of the Poisson random measure in decreasing order of their

2788: $z$-coordinates and we recover the sequence of weights

2789: $Z_i=M_i$ in the original model. 

2790: 

2791: We will write $(Y_i,Z_i)$ for a point of the Poisson random

2792: measure, where the points are labelled as above in that we regard

2793: $Y_i$ as the location in $\br^2_+$ and $Z_i$ as the weight in our continuous

2794: last passage percolation model.  Let

2795: \[ \cC_{xy} = \{A \subset \bn 

2796: \mbox{ such that for all $Y_i \sim Y_j$ 

2797: for all $i,j\in A$ and 

2798: $Y_i \in [0,x]\times[0,y]$ for all $i\in A$}\} \]

2799: and define

2800: \[ T(x,y) = \sup_{A\in \cC_{xy}} \sum_{i\in A} Z_i. \]

2801: It is clear by Theorem~\ref{Ttheorem} that this random variable will

2802: exist for each fixed $x,y$. This can be extended 

2803: to show that the random field

2804: $\{T(x,y),x>0,y>0\}$ exists and arises as the limit of the last

2805: passage model. Let 

2806: \[ T^{(n)}(x,y) = \max_{\pi\in \Pi^n_{xy}} \sum_{v\in \pi} X(v), \]

2807: where $\Pi^n_{xy}$ is the set of directed

2808: paths from $(1,1)$ to $(\lceil nx \rceil, \lceil ny \rceil)$,

2809: and let 

2810: \[ \tilde{T}^{(n)}(x,y) = \frac{T^{(n)}(x,y)}{a_{n^2}}. \]

2811: 

2812: \begin{theorem}

2813: The field $\{T(x,y), x>0,y>0\}$ 

2814: exists almost surely and $\{\tilde{T}^{(n)}(x,y),

2815: x>0,y>0\} \to \{ T(x,y), x>0,y>0\}$ in the sense of convergence of

2816: finite dimensional distributions.

2817: \end{theorem}

2818: 

2819: \noindent

2820: \emph{Proof:}

2821: Given a realisation of the PRM, the random variable

2822: $T(x,y)$ is well defined for all $x,y$, and over any finite box

2823: $[0,c_x]\times [0,c_y]$ we have $T(x,y)\leq T(c_x,c_y)$ whenever

2824: $x\leq c_x, y\leq c_y$; for any fixed $c_x,c_y$ we have

2825: $P(T(c_x,c_y)<\infty)=1$ and hence by countable additivity

2826: \[ P( T(x,y)<\infty \text{ for all } x,y ) =1. \]

2827: 

2828: %For our PRM formulation of the problem we let

2829: %\[ T_{\epsilon}(x,y) = \sup_{A\in C^{\epsilon}_{xy}} \sum_{i\in A}

2830: %Z_i, \]

2831: %where

2832: %\[ C_{xy}^{\epsilon} = \{A \subset \bn \mbox{ such that for all

2833: %  $i,j\in A, (X_i,Y_i) \sim (X_j,Y_j)$ with

2834: %  $(X_i,Y_i) \in [0,x]\times[0,y]$ and $Z_i\geq \epsilon$}\}. \]

2835: 

2836: %The existence of the field follows from the result that for any finite

2837: %region $(0,c_x)\times(0,c_y)$ we have $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}

2838: %T_{\epsilon}(c_x,c_y) = T(c_x,x_y)<\infty$ and hence for any finite

2839: %set of points $(x_1,y_1),\dots,(x_n,y_n)$ with $(x_i,y_i) \leq

2840: %(c_x,c_y)$ for $i=1,\dots,n$ we have

2841: %\[ T_{\epsilon}(x_1,y_1), \dots, T_{\epsilon}(x_n,y_n) \leq

2842: %T_{\epsilon}(c_x,c_y) \leq T(c_x,x_y). \]

2843: %The $T_{\epsilon}$ are monotone increasing and bounded above and this 

2844: %allows us to pass to the limit. Hence

2845: %\[ \lim_{\epsilon\to 0} T_{\epsilon}(x,y) = T(x,y), \;\;\forall x,y

2846: %\in (0,c_x)\times (0,c_y). \]

2847: %Thus for any finite set of points we have the joint convergence.

2848: 

2849: We now need to establish the convergence of finite dimensional distributions. 

2850: For one particular point we already have the one-dimensional

2851: convergence result given in Theorem~\ref{Ttheorem}. 

2852: Exactly the same couplings 

2853: between the discrete and continuous problems that we  

2854: used to prove Theorem~\ref{Ttheorem} 

2855: can be applied to extend the result to a finite collection of points

2856: within any finite box. The size of the box is

2857: arbitrary and we obtain convergence of all the finite dimensional

2858: distributions. \enpf

2859: 

2860: We now proceed to define a stationary field on the whole of

2861: $\br^2$. To do this we observe that by simple scaling $N(\lambda x, \nu y,

2862: (\lambda\nu)^{1/\alpha} z) = N(x,y,z)$ in distribution. In particular 

2863: we have

2864: \begin{equation}

2865:  T(\lambda x, \nu y) = (\lambda\nu)^{1/\alpha} T(x,y) \mbox{ in

2866:   distribution.}\label{eq:scale}

2867: \end{equation}

2868: Now put 

2869: \[ \Theta(u_1,u_2) = \exp\left(-\frac{(u_1+u_2)}{\alpha}\right) 

2870: T(e^{u_1},e^{u_2})

2871: \]

2872: for all $u_1,u_2\in\RR$.

2873: Then we have that for any $v_1,v_2\in\RR$,

2874: the collections 

2875: $\{\Theta(u_1,u_2), u_1,u_2\in\RR\}$

2876: and 

2877: $\{\Theta(u_1+v_1,u_2+v_2), u_1,u_2\in\RR\}$

2878: have the same distribution.

2879: 

2880: The next two results concern the moments and correlations of 

2881: this stationary field. 

2882: 

2883: \begin{proposition}\label{prop:fieldmoment}

2884: For all $\beta\in(0,\alpha)$ and all $\bfu\in\br^2$, we have 

2885: $\be \Theta(\bfu)^{\beta} = \be T(1,1)^{\beta}<\infty$.

2886: \end{proposition}

2887: 

2888: \noindent

2889: \emph{Proof:} This is a continuation  of the argument given to

2890: establish the existence of $T(1,1)$ in the proof of

2891: Lemma~\ref{Slemma}. Recalling the setting of that proof,

2892: we have $T(1,1)=S_0\leq U_0$,

2893: where for $k\geq 0$, we defined 

2894: $U_k=\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty L_i (M_i-M_{i+1})$.

2895: Here $L_i$ is the largest number of the first $i$ locations 

2896: that can be included in an increasing path; 

2897: there is a constant $c$ such that

2898: $\EE L_i\leq c\sqrt i$ and $\EE L_i^2\leq ci$ for all $i$,

2899: and the collections $(M_i)$ and $(L_i)$ are independent.

2900: 

2901: Since $T(1,1)\leq U_0$, it will be enough to show that $\EE U_0^\beta<\infty$.

2902: If a finite collection of random variables each have a 

2903: finite $\beta$th moment, then so does their sum.

2904: Hence, since $U_0=L_1(M_1-M_2)+\dots+L_k(M_k-M_{k+1}) +U_k$,

2905: it's enough to show both of the following:

2906: \begin{itemize}

2907: \item[(i)]for any $i$, $\EE\big[L_i(M_i-M_{i+1})\big]^\beta<\infty$;

2908: \item[(ii)]for some $k$, $\EE U_k^\beta<\infty$.

2909: \end{itemize}

2910: For property (i), note that $\big[L_i(M_i-M_{i+1})\big]^\beta<(iM_1)^\beta$,

2911: so it's enough to show that $\EE M_1^\beta<\infty$.

2912: But $M_1=W_1^{-1/\alpha}$, where $W_1$ has exponential distribution

2913: with mean 1. Thus $\EE M_1^\beta=\int_0^\infty w^{-\beta/\alpha}e^{-w}dw$,

2914: which is finite for all $\beta<\alpha$ as required.

2915: 

2916: So it remains to show (ii).

2917: Since $\beta<\alpha<2$, it is enough to show that $\EE U_k^2<\infty$

2918: for all large enough $k$, and this is what we will do.

2919: 

2920: Recall that we can write $M_i=(W_1+\dots+W_i)^{-1/\alpha}$

2921: where $W_j$ are i.i.d. exponential random variables

2922: with mean 1. We also write $V_i=W_1+\dots+W_i$, so that $M_i=V_i^{-1/\alpha}$.

2923: Then, using the fact that $(1+x)^{-1/\alpha}>1-x/\alpha$ for all $x>0$,

2924: we have that for all $i$,

2925: \begin{align}

2926: \nonumber

2927: \EE(M_i-M_{i+1})^2

2928: &=

2929: \EE\left[

2930: V_i^{-1/\alpha}\left(

2931: 1-\left(\frac{V_{i+1}}{V_i}\right)^{-1/\alpha}

2932: \right)

2933: \right]^2

2934: \\

2935: \nonumber

2936: &=

2937: \EE\left[

2938: V_i^{-2/\alpha}\left(

2939: 1-\left(1+\frac{W_{i+1}}{V_i}\right)^{-1/\alpha}

2940: \right)^2

2941: \right]

2942: \\

2943: \nonumber

2944: &\leq

2945: \EE\left[

2946: \frac{1}{\alpha^2}V_i^{-2/\alpha}V_i^{-2}W_{i+1}^2

2947: \right]

2948: \\

2949: \nonumber

2950: &=C\EE V_i^{-2-2/\alpha},

2951: \end{align}

2952: for some constant $C$, since $V_i$ and $W_{i+1}$ are independent.

2953: Arguing as at (\ref{Gammacalc}) and (\ref{Gammafact}),

2954: we have that $V_i$ has Gamma$(i,1)$ distribution, and we 

2955: obtain that for some constant $\tC$ and all large enough $i$ 

2956: \begin{equation}

2957: \label{Mbound}

2958: \EE(M_i-M_{i+1})^2\leq \tC i^{-2-2/\alpha}.

2959: \end{equation}

2960: 

2961: Suppose $k$ is large enough that (\ref{Mbound}) holds for all $i>k$.

2962: Then using Cauchy-Schwarz, we obtain that for all $\epsilon>0$,

2963: \begin{align*}

2964: U_k

2965: &=\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty L_i(M_i-M_{i+1})

2966: \\

2967: &\leq \left[

2968: \sum_{i=k+1}^\infty

2969: \left(

2970: i^{-1/2-\epsilon}

2971: \right)^2

2972: \right]^{1/2}

2973: \left[

2974: \sum_{i=k+1}^\infty

2975: \left(

2976: i^{1/2+\epsilon}

2977: L_i

2978: (M_i-M_{i+1})

2979: \right)^2

2980: \right]^{1/2}.

2981: \end{align*}

2982: The first sum is finite for any $\epsilon>0$.

2983: Thus squaring and taking expectations, we have that 

2984: \begin{align*}

2985: \EE U_k^2

2986: &\leq

2987: c'\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty

2988: i^{1+\epsilon}\EE L_i^2 \EE(M_i-M_{i+1})^2

2989: \\

2990: &\leq

2991: c''\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty i^{1+\epsilon} i i^{-2-2/\alpha}

2992: \\

2993: &=c''\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty i^{-2/\alpha+\epsilon},

2994: \end{align*}

2995: for some constants $c', c''$. Since $\alpha<2$,

2996: this sum is finite for small enough $\epsilon$,

2997: and so $\EE U_k^2<\infty$ as desired.\enpf

2998: 

2999: \begin{proposition}

3000: \label{prop:holder}

3001: For all $\beta<\alpha$ and all $\bfu, \bfv\in\RR_+^2$,

3002: we have

3003: \[ 

3004: \be |T(\bfu)-T(\bfv)|^{\beta} \leq

3005: 4\max\{\|\bfu\|,\|\bfv\|\}^{\beta/\alpha} \|\bfu-\bfv\|^{\beta/\alpha}

3006: \be T({\bf 1})^{\beta}. 

3007: \]

3008: \end{proposition}

3009: 

3010: \noindent

3011: \emph{Proof:} Recall that $T(\bfu)$ is increasing in the partial order

3012: on $\br_+^2$. We just need to consider the two cases where $\bfu \leq

3013: \bfv$ and where they are not comparable, so that, say, $u_1<v_1$ and

3014: $u_2>v_2$. 

3015: 

3016: For $\bfu\leq\bfv$, it is a simple observation that 

3017: \begin{equation}

3018: \label{tvtubound}

3019: T(\bfv) -T(\bfu) \leq T\big((0,u_2),\bfv\big) + T\big((u_1,0),\bfv\big), 

3020: \end{equation}

3021: where, for $\bx\leq\by\in\RR_+^2$,

3022: $T(\bx,\by)$ denotes the maximal weight of an increasing path 

3023: from $\bx$ to $\by$.

3024: By the scaling in the field we have the distributional relationships

3025: \begin{equation}\label{scalingrel}

3026: T\big((a,b),(c,d)\big) 

3027: \stackrel{d}{=} 

3028: T(c-a,d-b) 

3029: \stackrel{d}{=} 

3030: (c-a)^{1/\alpha}(d-b)^{1/\alpha}T(1,1).

3031: \end{equation}

3032: For any random variables $X_1$, $X_2$, we have

3033: $\EE(X_1+X_2)^\beta\leq 2^{\max\{\beta,1\}}

3034: \max\{\EE X_1^\beta, \EE X_2^\beta\}$.

3035: Thus from (\ref{tvtubound}) and (\ref{scalingrel}) we obtain

3036: \begin{align}

3037: \nonumber

3038: \be |T(\bfv)-T(\bfu)|^{\beta} 

3039: &\leq 2^{\max\{\beta,1\}}

3040: \max\left\{

3041: \EE T(v_1-u_1,v_2)^\beta,

3042: \EE T(v_1,v_2-u_2)^\beta

3043: \right\}

3044: \\

3045: \label{firstform}

3046: &\leq

3047: 4 \EE T({\bf 1})^\beta \max\left\{

3048: (v_1-u_1)^{\beta/\alpha}v_2^{\beta/\alpha},

3049: v_1^{\beta/\alpha}(v_2-u_2)^{\beta/\alpha}

3050: \right\}.

3051: \end{align}

3052: For the case $u_1<v_1$, $v_2<u_2$, we observe similarly that

3053: \begin{equation}

3054: \label{eq:tuv3}

3055: |T(\bv)-T(\bu)|\leq T\big((u_1,0), (v_1,u_2)\big)+T\big((0,v_2),(v_1,u_2)\big).

3056: \end{equation}

3057: Raising to the power $\beta$ and taking expectations as above,

3058: we obtain that 

3059: \begin{equation}\label{secondform}

3060: \EE |T(\bv)-T(\bu)|^\beta

3061: \leq 4\EE T({\bf 1})^{\beta}\max\left\{

3062: (v_1-u_1)^{\beta/\alpha}v_2^{\beta/\alpha},

3063: (u_2-v_2)^{\beta/\alpha}u_1^{\beta/\alpha}

3064: \right\}.

3065: \end{equation}

3066: Combining the estimates from 

3067: (\ref{firstform}) and (\ref{secondform}) now gives the result.

3068: \enpf

3069: 

3070: We are now ready to define our analogue of the Airy process. If we set

3071: $H_u = \Theta(u,-u) = T(e^u,e^{-u})$, we have a one-dimensional stationary

3072: process $\{H_u,u\in\br\}$, 

3073: as the processes $(H_{u+t}, u\in\br)$ and $(H_u, u\in\br)$ 

3074: have the same distribution for all

3075: $t\in \br$. We note that as $H_0 = T(1,1)$, the marginal

3076: distribution for our stationary process is the distribution of the

3077: limit random variable in our continuous model for heavy-tailed last

3078: passage percolation. By applying the estimates for the random field we

3079: have estimates on the H\"older continuity of the heavy-tailed Airy

3080: process. 

3081: 

3082: \begin{corollary}

3083: For $\beta<\alpha$, we have: 

3084: \begin{itemize}

3085: \item[(i)] $\be H_0^\beta <\infty$.

3086: \item[(ii)] For each $\tau>0$ and all $u,v\in[-\tau,\tau]$,  

3087: \[ \be |H_u-H_v|^{\beta} \leq 2e^{2\beta\tau/\alpha}

3088: |u-v|^{\beta/\alpha} \be H_0^\beta. \]

3089: \end{itemize}

3090: \end{corollary}

3091: 

3092: \noindent

3093: \emph{Proof:} The first part is

3094: Proposition~\ref{prop:fieldmoment}. The second follows from the second

3095: part of the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop:holder} as, assuming $u<v$

3096: and using (\ref{eq:tuv3}) with $v_1=e^v, v_2=e^{-v}, u_1=e^u,u_2=e^{-u}$,

3097: \begin{eqnarray*}

3098:  \be |H_u-H_v|^{\beta} &\leq& (e^v(e^{-u}-e^{-v}))^{\beta/\alpha} \be

3099: H_0^{\beta} + ((e^v-e^u)e^{-u})^{\beta/\alpha} \be H_0^{\beta} \\

3100: &=& 2 (e^{v-u}-1)^{\beta/\alpha} \be H_0^{\beta} \\

3101: &\leq & 2(v-u)^{\beta/\alpha} e^{(v-u)\beta/\alpha}\be H_0^{\beta},

3102: \end{eqnarray*}

3103: and the result follows. \enpf

3104: 

3105: Finally we give a weak convergence result for our 

3106: heavy-tailed Airy process.

3107: 

3108: \begin{theorem}

3109: The sequence $\{a_{n^2}^{-1} T^{(n)}(e^u,e^{-u})\}_{u\in [-\tau,\tau]}$

3110: converges weakly to $\{H_u\}_{u\in [-\tau,\tau]}$ in $D[-\tau,\tau]$.

3111: \end{theorem}

3112: 

3113: \noindent

3114: \emph{Proof:}

3115: We follow the approach outlined in \cite{Resnick86} for such

3116: weak convergence problems, in particular the proof of

3117: \cite{Resnick86}~Proposition~3.4.

3118: 

3119: Since we restrict to $u\in[-\tau, \tau]$,

3120: we can consider only those points of the 

3121: PRM whose locations fall in the box $[0,c_x]\times[0,c_y]$

3122: where $c_x=c_y=e^\tau$. Thus we can write

3123: the points as a sequence $(Y_i, Z_i), i=1,2,\dots$

3124: such that the sequence $(Z_i)$ is decreasing and such that

3125: $Y_i\in [0,c_x]\times [0,c_y]$ for all $i$.

3126: 

3127: Define $H^{k}_u = T_k(e^u,e^{-u})$ where 

3128: \[ T_k(x,y) = \sup_{A\in \cC^k_{xy}} \sum_{i\in A} Z_i, \]

3129: with 

3130: \[ \cC^k_{xy} = \{A \subset\{1,\dots,k\} : Y_i\sim Y_j \,\forall

3131: i,j\in A\}. \]

3132: 

3133: As before, we need a corresponding formulation of the

3134: discrete model. For given $n$,

3135: we work on the box $B^n=\{1,\dots,\lceil ne^\tau\rceil\}^2$.

3136: The weight at a point $y\in B^n$ has distribution $F$,

3137: independently for different points. 

3138: We represent the weights and their positions

3139: by a vector $(Y^n_i, M^n_i,1\leq i\leq \lceil ne^\tau\rceil^2)$,

3140: where $M^n_i$ form a decreasing sequence. 

3141: The interpretation is that $Y^n_i$ is the location

3142: of the $i$th largest weight $M^n_i$ in the box $B^n$.

3143: 

3144: We can then define 

3145: $H^{(n),k} = 

3146: \tilde{T}^{(n)}_k(\lceil ne^u\rceil ,\lceil ne^{-u}\rceil)$ 

3147: where 

3148: \[ \tilde{T}^{(n)}_k(\lceil nx \rceil ,\lceil ny \rceil) 

3149: = \sup_{A\in \cC^{(n),k}_{xy}} \sum_{i\in A}

3150: a_{n^2}^{-1} M^{(n)}_i, \]

3151: with 

3152: \[ \cC^{(n),k}_{xy} = \{A \subset\{1,\dots,k\wedge n^2\} : 

3153: \forall i,j\in A, Y^{(n)}_i \sim Y^{(n)}_j\}. \]

3154: 

3155: For the proof we will establish that $H^{(n),k}$ converges weakly

3156: to $H^k$, that $H^k \to H$ locally uniformly and that 

3157: \[ \lim_{k\to\infty} \limsup_{n\to\infty}

3158: \bp(\rho(H^{(n),k},H^{(n)})>\epsilon) = 0, \]

3159: for each $\epsilon>0$, where $\rho$ is the metric for the Skorohod

3160: topology. 

3161: 

3162: % \[ \rho(H^{(n)},H) \leq \rho(H^{(n)},H^{(n),\delta}) +

3163: %\rho(H^{(n),\delta},H^{\delta}) +

3164: %\rho(H^{\delta},H), \]

3165: 

3166: We begin by establishing $H^k \to H$ as $k\to\infty$. This is

3167: a consequence of the construction via a PRM. For each $u$, $H^k_u$ is an

3168: increasing function of $k$ and converges to $H_u$. 

3169: With probability 1, this holds 

3170: uniformly for each $u\in[-\tau, \tau]$, 

3171: since for all such $u$ we have 

3172: \[

3173: 0\leq H_u-H_u^k \leq 

3174: \sup_{A\in \cC_{e^\tau, e^\tau}}\sum_{i\in A, i>k} M_i;

3175: \]

3176: the upper bound is finite with probability 1 exactly as in 

3177: Lemma \ref{Slemma}.

3178: 

3179: Next we wish to show the 

3180: weak convergence of $H^{(n),k}$ to $H^k$.

3181: This can be done by an extension of the method 

3182: of Proposition \ref{coupledprop}.

3183: Note that with probability 1, 

3184: no two points of the PRM share a vertical coordinate 

3185: or a horizontal coordinate, and in addition

3186: no point of the PRM falls on the line 

3187: parametrised by $(x,y)=(e^u, e^{-u})$.

3188: Then under the same couplings used in the proof 

3189: of Proposition \ref{coupledprop},

3190: one obtains that with probability 1,

3191: $H^{(n),k}\to H^k$ in the Skorohod space. 

3192: Thus this weak convergence also holds as desired.

3193: 

3194: Finally we need to control $\rho(H^{(n),k},H^{(n)})$. 

3195: Fix an $\epsilon>0$.

3196: Consider

3197: \begin{eqnarray*}

3198: \bp\left(\rho(H^{(n),k},H^{(n)}) > \epsilon\right) 

3199: &\leq & 

3200: \bp\left(\sup_{-\tau<u<\tau}

3201: \left|H^{(n),k}_u - H^{(n)}_u\right|>\epsilon\right) 

3202: \\

3203: &=&  

3204: \bp\left(\sup_{-\tau<u<\tau} \left|\tilde{T}_k^{(n)}(e^u,e^{-u}) -

3205: \tilde{T}^{(n)}(e^u,e^{-u})\right|>\epsilon\right) 

3206: \\ 

3207: &=&  

3208: \bp\left(\sup_{-\tau<u<\tau} 

3209: \left|

3210: \sup_{A\in C^{(n),k}_{e^u,e^{-u}}} \sum_{i\in A}

3211: a_{n^2}^{-1} M_i^{n} - \sup_{A\in C^{(n)}_{e^u,e^{-u}}} \sum_{i\in A}

3212: a_{n^2}^{-1} M_i^{n} 

3213: \right|

3214: >\epsilon\right) 

3215: \\

3216: &\leq&  

3217: \bp\left(\sup_{-\tau<u<\tau} 

3218: \left| 

3219: \tilde{S}^{(n)}_k(e^u,e^{-u})

3220: \right|

3221: >\epsilon\right),

3222: \end{eqnarray*}

3223: where $\tilde{S}^{(n)}_k(e^u,e^{-u}) = \sup_{A\in

3224: C^{(n)}_{e^u,e^{-u}}} \sum_{i\in A, i>k} a_{n^2}^{-1} M_i^{n}$. By

3225: monotonicity we have

3226: \[  \sup_{-\tau<u<\tau} \left| \tilde{S}^{(n)}_k(e^u,e^{-u})\right| \leq

3227: \tilde{S}^{(n)}_k(e^\tau,e^\tau), \]

3228: and using the scaling

3229: \[ \bp\Big(\rho(H^{(n),k},H^{(n)}\Big) > \epsilon) \leq

3230: \bp\Big(\tilde{S}^{(n)}_{k}(1,1) > \epsilon e^{-2\tau/\alpha}\Big). \]

3231: 

3232: By Proposition~\ref{Aprop} we have that

3233: $\bp\big(\tilde{S}^{(n)}_k > \epsilon e^{-2\tau/\alpha}\big) \to 0$ 

3234: as $k\to \infty$ uniformly in $n$. 

3235: Thus indeed we have

3236: \[ \lim_{k \to\infty} \limsup_{n\to \infty}

3237:   P\big(\rho(H^{(n),k},H^{(n)}\big) >\epsilon) =0. \]

3238: Putting the three pieces together we have shown the weak convergence. \enpf

3239: 

3240: \section{Higher-dimensional heavy-tailed last passage percolation}

3241: \label{dsection}

3242: Up to this point we have considered only two-dimensional models.

3243: In this section we indicate how to extend most of the results 

3244: to higher dimensions in a natural way.

3245: 

3246: For general $d\geq 2$, we consider the passage time

3247: from the point $(1,1,\dots,1)$ to the point $(n,n,\dots, n)$.

3248: 

3249: We now consider a sequence of locations $Y_i^{(n)}$,

3250: $i=1,2,\dots, n^d$ which form a uniform random

3251: permutation of the set $\{1/n, 2/n, \dots, 1\}^d\subset [0,1]^d$,

3252: and a corresponding sequence of weights $M_i^{(n)}$, $i=1,2,\dots,n^d$

3253: which are given by the order statistics, in decreasing order,

3254: of a sample of size $n^d$ from the underlying weight distribution $F$.

3255: We now assume that the tail of $F$ is regularly varying

3256: with index $\alpha<d$.

3257: 

3258: Defining $\cC^{(n)}$ as before, we set 

3259: $T^{(n)}=\sup_{A\in\cC^{(n)}} \sum_{i\in A} M_i^{(n)}$,

3260: and $\tT^{(n)}=a_{n^d}^{-1} T^{(n)}$.

3261: 

3262: The continuous model is defined just as before;

3263: the locations $Y_i$ are now drawn i.i.d.\ and uniformly at random

3264: from the box $[0,1]^d$ rather than the square $[0,1]^2$.

3265: 

3266: Then $\tT^{(n)}\to T$ in distribution as $n\to\infty$;

3267: the method of proof is essentially identical to that

3268: used for Theorem \ref{Ttheorem} in the case $d=2$.

3269: 

3270: The multivariate extensions described in Sections 

3271: \ref{preAiry} and \ref{Airysection}

3272: go through in an analogous way. 

3273: For example, we can now obtain a process $\Theta$ which is 

3274: stationary on $\RR^d$ such that 

3275: \[ 

3276: \Bigg\{ \exp\left(-\frac{u_1+\dots+u_d}{\alpha}\right) 

3277: a_{n^d}^{-1}T^{(n)}\left(e^{u_1},\dots,e^{u_d}\right), \bu\in\RR^d\Bigg\}

3278: \to \Big\{\Theta(u_1,\dots,u_d), \bu\in\RR^d\Big\}

3279: \]

3280: as $n\to\infty$, in the sense of convergence of

3281: finite-dimensional distributions;

3282: here $T^{(n)}(u_1,\dots,u_d)$ is the 

3283: maximal weight of a path from $(1,\dots,1)$  to 

3284: the point $(\lceil n u_1 \rceil,

3285: \dots, \lceil n u_d \rceil)$.

3286: 

3287: We turn to the path convergence as developed in Section

3288: \ref{pathsection}. 

3289: Proposition \ref{uniquenessprop} and Theorem \ref{paththeorem}

3290: extend easily, with the same method of proof. 

3291: However, extending Theorem \ref{paththeorem2}, 

3292: concerning the convergence of optimal paths 

3293: viewed as random subsets of $[0,1]^d$,

3294: is more problematic. 

3295: Again we are unable to prove that the optimal path 

3296: for the continuous model (i.e.\ the closure of 

3297: $\bigcup_{i\in A^*} Y_i$) is connected

3298: (although we expect this to be true).

3299: In the case $d=2$ this caused a little inconvenience 

3300: but we could work around it by observing that

3301: any ``jumps'' in the path consist of 

3302: horizontal or vertical line segments, and hence that

3303: at least there exists a unique connected increasing path

3304: that contains the optimal path.

3305: 

3306: For $d\geq 3$, however, a jump could, for example, 

3307: cross a square of zero volume in $\RR^d$ but 

3308: with non-zero area. Then there is no longer a unique 

3309: way to extend the optimal path to a connected increasing path,

3310: and thus there is an ambiguity in the limit object.

3311: If we could prove the conjecture that the optimal path 

3312: itself is connected, the convergence in distribution 

3313: of the discrete optimal paths $P^{(n)*}$ would follow as before.

3314: 

3315: In the case $\alpha=0$, we can in fact prove the connectedness

3316: of the optimal path for the continuous model 

3317: (defined as in Section \ref{greedysection} using

3318: the ``greedy algorithm''). 

3319: It is not clear how to extend the multifractal 

3320: analysis of Section \ref{greedysubsection}.

3321: However, by analysing a branching

3322: random walk associated with the algorithm which constructs

3323: the greedy path, one can obtain

3324: that the function from, say, $x_1\in[0,1]$

3325: to $(x_2,\dots, x_d)\in[0,1]^{d-1}$ which describes the path

3326: is almost surely everywhere continuous and strictly increasing

3327: (although a.s.\ it also has derivative 0 almost everywhere).

3328: Thus one can show that $P^{(n)*}\to P^*$ 

3329: in distribution (under the Hausdorff metric on subsets of $[0,1]^d$)

3330: for all $d$ in the case $\alpha=0$.

3331: 

3332: \section*{Acknowledgments}

3333: We are grateful for the support of the Isaac Newton Institute in Cambridge; 

3334: this work began during the programme \textit{Interaction

3335: and Growth in Complex Stochastic Systems}.

3336: 

3337: %\bibliographystyle{usual2}

3338: %\bibliography{jbm}

3339: 

3340: \begin{thebibliography}{10}

3341: 

3342: \bibitem{AldDiapatience}

3343: \textsc{Aldous, D. and Diaconis, P.},  (1999) Longest increasing subsequences:

3344:   from patience sorting to the {B}aik-{D}eift-{J}ohansson theorem.

3345: \newblock \emph{Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)} \textbf{36}, 413--432.

3346: 

3347: \bibitem{ap}

3348: \textsc{Arbeiter, M. and Patzschke, N.},  (1996) Random self-similar

3349:   multifractals.

3350: \newblock \emph{Math. Nachr.} \textbf{181}, 5--42.

3351: 

3352: \bibitem{BBM}

3353: \textsc{Baccelli, F., Borovkov, A. and Mairesse, J.},  (2000) Asymptotic

3354:   results on infinite tandem queueing networks.

3355: \newblock \emph{Probab.\ Theory Related Fields} \textbf{118}, 365--405.

3356: 

3357: \bibitem{BDMMZ}

3358: \textsc{Baik, J., Deift, P., McLaughlin, K. T.-R., Miller, P. and Zhou, X.},

3359:   (2001) Optimal tail estimates for directed last passage site percolation with

3360:   geometric random variables.

3361: \newblock \emph{Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.} \textbf{5}, 1207--1250.

3362: 

3363: \bibitem{BaiSui}

3364: \textsc{Baik, J. and Suidan, T.},  (2005) A {G}{U}{E} central limit theorem and

3365:   universality of directed first and last passage site percolation.

3366: \newblock \emph{Int. Math. Res. Not.} \textbf{2005:6}, 325--337.

3367: 

3368: \bibitem{GUEs}

3369: \textsc{Baryshnikov, Y.},  (2001) GUEs and queues.

3370: \newblock \emph{Probab.\ Theory Related Fields} \textbf{119}, 256--274.

3371: 

3372: \bibitem{Bertoinbook}

3373: \textsc{Bertoin, J.},  (1996) \emph{L\'evy processes}, vol. 121 of

3374:   \emph{Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics}.

3375: \newblock Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

3376: 

3377: \bibitem{bhj}

3378: \textsc{Biggins, J.~D., Hambly, B.~M. and Jones, O.~D.},  (2006) Multifractal

3379:   spectra for random self-similar measures via branching processes.

3380: \newblock In preparation.

3381: 

3382: \bibitem{BodineauMartin}

3383: \textsc{Bodineau, T. and Martin, J.~B.},  (2005) A universality property for

3384:   last-passage percolation paths close to the axis.

3385: \newblock \emph{Electron. Comm. Probab.} \textbf{10}, 105--112 (electronic).

3386: 

3387: \bibitem{Davidbook}

3388: \textsc{David, H.~A.},  (1981) \emph{Order statistics}.

3389: \newblock John Wiley \& Sons Inc., New York, 2nd ed.

3390: \newblock Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics.

3391: 

3392: \bibitem{fal}

3393: \textsc{Falconer, K.~J.},  (1994) The multifractal spectrum of statistically

3394:   self-similar measures.

3395: \newblock \emph{J. Theoret. Probab.} \textbf{7}, 681--702.

3396: 

3397: \bibitem{GlyWhi}

3398: \textsc{Glynn, P.~W. and Whitt, W.},  (1991) Departures from many queues in

3399:   series.

3400: \newblock \emph{Ann.\ Appl.\ Probab.} \textbf{1}, 546--572.

3401: 

3402: \bibitem{GraTraWid}

3403: \textsc{Gravner, J., Tracy, C.~A. and Widom, H.},  (2001) Limit theorems for

3404:   height fluctuations in a class of discrete space and time growth models.

3405: \newblock \emph{J.\ Statist.\ Phys.} \textbf{102}, 1085--1132.

3406: 

3407: \bibitem{hmo}

3408: \textsc{Hambly, B.~M., Martin, J.~B. and O'Connell, N.},  (2002) Concentration

3409:   results for a {B}rownian directed percolation problem.

3410: \newblock \emph{Stochastic Process.\ Appl.} \textbf{102}, 207--220.

3411: 

3412: \bibitem{JLRbook}

3413: \textsc{Janson, S., {\L}uczak, T. and Rucinski, A.},  (2000) \emph{Random

3414:   graphs}.

3415: \newblock Wiley-Interscience Series in Discrete Mathematics and Optimization.

3416:   Wiley-Interscience, New York.

3417: 

3418: \bibitem{Johshape}

3419: \textsc{Johansson, K.},  (2000) Shape fluctuations and random matrices.

3420: \newblock \emph{Comm. Math. Phys.} \textbf{209}, 437--476.

3421: 

3422: \bibitem{Johanssontransversal}

3423: \textsc{Johansson, K.},  (2000) Transversal fluctuations for increasing

3424:   subsequences on the plane.

3425: \newblock \emph{Probab. Theory Related Fields} \textbf{116}, 445--456.

3426: 

3427: \bibitem{JohanssonAiry}

3428: \textsc{Johansson, K.},  (2003) Discrete polynuclear growth and determinantal

3429:   processes.

3430: \newblock \emph{Comm. Math. Phys.} \textbf{242}, 277--329.

3431: 

3432: \bibitem{KrugSpohn}

3433: \textsc{Krug, J. and Spohn, H.},  (1992) Kinetic roughening of growing

3434:   surfaces.

3435: \newblock In C.~Godr{\`e}che, ed., \emph{Solids far from equilibrium},

3436:   Collection Al\'ea-Saclay: Monographs and Texts in Statistical Physics, 1,

3437:   pages 479--582. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

3438: 

3439: \bibitem{blocking}

3440: \textsc{Martin, J.~B.},  (2002) Large tandem queueing networks with blocking.

3441: \newblock \emph{Queueing Syst. Theory Appl.} \textbf{41}, 45--72.

3442: 

3443: \bibitem{animals}

3444: \textsc{Martin, J.~B.},  (2002) Linear growth for greedy lattice animals.

3445: \newblock \emph{Stochastic Process.\ Appl.} \textbf{98}, 43--66.

3446: 

3447: \bibitem{JBMshape}

3448: \textsc{Martin, J.~B.},  (2004) Limiting shape for directed percolation models.

3449: \newblock \emph{Ann. Probab.} \textbf{32}, 2908--2937.

3450: 

3451: \bibitem{Neilsurvey}

3452: \textsc{O'Connell, N.},  (2003) Random matrices, non-colliding particle systems

3453:   and queues.

3454: \newblock In \emph{S\'{e}minaire de Probabilit\'{e}s XXXVI}, no. 1801 in

3455:   Lecture Notes in Mathematics, pages 165--182. Springer-Verlag.

3456: 

3457: \bibitem{OcoYor}

3458: \textsc{O'Connell, N. and Yor, M.},  (2001) Brownian analogues of {B}urke's

3459:   theorem.

3460: \newblock \emph{Stochastic Process. Appl.} \textbf{96}, 285--304.

3461: 

3462: \bibitem{PraSpo}

3463: \textsc{Pr{\"a}hofer, M. and Spohn, H.},  (2002) Scale invariance of the {PNG}

3464:   droplet and the {A}iry process.

3465: \newblock \emph{J. Statist. Phys.} \textbf{108}, 1071--1106.

3466: 

3467: \bibitem{Resnick86}

3468: \textsc{Resnick, S.~I.},  (1986) Point processes, regular variation and weak

3469:   convergence.

3470: \newblock \emph{Adv. in Appl. Probab.} \textbf{18}, 66--138.

3471: 

3472: \bibitem{Rost}

3473: \textsc{Rost, H.},  (1981) Nonequilibrium behaviour of a many particle process:

3474:   density profile and local equilibria.

3475: \newblock \emph{Z. Wahrsch. Verw. Gebiete} \textbf{58}, 41--53.

3476: 

3477: \bibitem{Soshnikovheavy}

3478: \textsc{Soshnikov, A.},  (2004) Poisson statistics for the largest eigenvalues

3479:   of {W}igner random matrices with heavy tails.

3480: \newblock \emph{Electron. Comm. Probab.} \textbf{9}, 82--91 (electronic).

3481: 

3482: \end{thebibliography}

3483: 

3484: 

3485: \bigskip

3486: 

3487: \parbox{0.52\linewidth}

3488: {

3489: \textsc{Mathematical Institute,\\

3490: University of Oxford,\\

3491: 24-29 St Giles,\\

3492: Oxford OX1 3LB,\\

3493: UK}\\

3494: \texttt{hambly@maths.ox.ac.uk}\\

3495: \texttt{http://www.maths.ox.ac.uk/$\tilde{\,\,\,\,}$hambly}}

3496: \hfill

3497: \parbox{0.47\linewidth}

3498: {\textsc{Department of Statistics,\\

3499: University of Oxford,\\

3500: 1 South Parks Road,\\

3501: Oxford OX1 3TG\\

3502: UK}\\

3503: \texttt{martin@stats.ox.ac.uk}\\

3504: \texttt{http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/$\tilde{\,\,\,\,}$martin}}

3505: 

3506: 

3507: \end{document}

3508: 

3509: