Abstract
Given a branching random walk on \({\mathbb {R}}\) started from the origin, where the tail of the branching law decays at least exponentially fast and the offspring number is at least one, let \(Z_n(\cdot )\) be the counting measure which counts the number of individuals at the n-th generation located in a given set. Under some mild conditions, it is known (Biggins in Stoch. Process. Appl. 34:255–274, 1990) that for any interval \(A\subset {\mathbb {R}}\), \(\frac{Z_n(\sqrt{n}A)}{Z_n({\mathbb {R}})}\) converges a.s. to \(\nu (A)\), where \(\nu \) is the standard Gaussian measure. In this work, we investigate the convergence rates of
for \(\Delta \in (0, 1-\nu (A))\). We consider both the Schröder case, where the offspring number could be one, and the Böttcher case, where the offspring number is at least two.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asmussen, S., Kaplan, N.: Branching random walk I. Stoch. Process. Appl. 4, 1–13 (1976)
Athreya, K.B., Ney, P.E.: Branching Processes. Springer, Berlin (1972)
Biggins, J.D.: The central limit theorem for the supercritical branching random walk, and related results. Stoch. Process. Appl. 34, 255–274 (1990)
Chen, X.: Exact convergence rates for the distribution of the particles in branching random walks. Ann. Appl. Probab. 11, 1242–1262 (2001)
Dembo, A., Zeitouni, O.: Large Deviation Techniques and Applications. Springer, Berlin (1998)
Durrett, R.: Probability Theory and Examples, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)
Fleischmann, K., Wachtel, V.: Large deviations for sums indexed by the generations of a Galton–Watson process. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 141, 445–470 (2008)
Gao, Z.: Exact convergence rate of the local limit theorem for branching random walks on the integer lattice. Stoch. Process. Appl. 127, 1282–1296 (2017)
Gao, Z., Liu, Q.: Exact convergence rates in central limit theorems for a branching random walk with a random environment in time. Stoch. Process. Appl. 126, 2634–2664 (2016)
Gao, Z., Liu, Q.: Second and third orders asymptotic expansions for the distribution of particles in a branching random walk with a random environment in time. Bernoulli 24(1), 772–800 (2018)
Harris, T.E.: The Theory of Branching Processes. Springer, Berlin (1963)
Klebaner, C.F.: Branching random walk in varying environments. Adv. Appl. Probab. 14, 359–367 (1982)
Louidor, O., Perkins, W.: Large deviations for the empirical distribution in the branching random walk. Electron. J. Probab. 18, 1–19 (2015)
Louidor, O., Tsairi, E.: Large deviations for the empirical distribution in the general branching random walk (2017). arXiv:1704.02374
Nagaev, S.V.: Large deviations of sums of independent random variables. Ann. Probab. 7, 745–789 (1979)
Shi, Z.: Branching random walks. In: École d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XLII-2012, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2151. Springer, Berlin (2015)
Zeitouni, O.: Branching random walks and Gaussian fields. In: Probability and Statistical Physics in St. Petersburg, Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 91, pp. 437–471. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI (2016)
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to Prof. Zhan Shi for help with Lemma 3.3. We also would like to thank the referee for carefully reading our paper, spotting several inaccuracies and for making valuable suggestions to improve the presentation. Hui He is supported by NSFC (Nos. 11671041, 11531001, 11371061).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A
Lemma A.1
Proof
Let \(x_0:=\sup \{x\in {\mathbb {R}}: F(x)<1\}\) and \(\theta _0:=\sup \{t\in {\mathbb {R}}_+: \Lambda (t)<\infty \}\). According to Sect. 2.6 of [6], there are three cases:
-
(A)
if \(x_0<\infty \), then \(\gamma (a)\uparrow -\log {\mathbb {P}}(X=x_0)\) as \(a\uparrow x_0\);
-
(B)
if \(x_0=\infty \) and \(\Lambda '(t)\uparrow \infty \) as \(t\uparrow \theta _0\), then for any \(a>0\) there exists \(t\in D_\lambda ^o\) such that \(\gamma (a)=t\Lambda '(t)-\Lambda (t)\);
-
(C)
if \(x_0=\infty \), \(\theta _0<\infty \) and \(\Lambda '(t)\uparrow a_0<\infty \) as \(t\uparrow \theta _0\), then \(\Lambda (\theta _0)<\infty \) and \(\gamma (a)=a\theta _0-\Lambda (\theta _0)\) for \(a\ge a_0\).
Recall (2.8). Let \(\Lambda _{\infty }'=\sup _{t\in \mathcal{D}_{\Lambda }^o}\Lambda '(t)\). In all cases above, we have
A simple calculation shows that the above infimum is taken when \(\Lambda (t)=-\log p_1.\) Then (A.1) follows readily. \(\square \)
Lemma A.2
For any \(\alpha >0\), let \(\{L_k: k\ge 0\}\) be a sequence such that \(0<L_0< {\bar{\Lambda }}(p_1)\) and
If \(0<\alpha \Lambda '({\bar{\Lambda }}(p_1))\le 1\), then the sequence \((L_k)_{k\ge 0}\) is non-decreasing and
Proof
Notice that
Thus if \(0<L_0\le {\bar{\Lambda }}(p_1)=:\theta \), then using the facts that \(\log \frac{1}{p_1}=\Lambda (\theta )\) yields
which implies \(L_1\ge L_0\). Furthermore, since \(0<\alpha \Lambda '({\bar{\Lambda }}(p_1))<1\), then by convexity of \(\Lambda \),
Therefore, \(\theta \ge L_1\ge L_0\). Inductively, we have \(\theta \ge L_{k+1}\ge L_k>0\). So the sequence \((L_k)_{k\ge 1}\) is non-decreasing and hence its limit exists with \(L:=\lim _{k\rightarrow \infty }L_k\le \theta \). On the other hand, as \(L_0\le L_k\le \theta \),
This shows that \(\theta -L_k\rightarrow 0\) as \(k\rightarrow \infty \). \(\square \)
Appendix B
The following lemma concerns large deviation probabilities of sums of i.i.d. random variables. The results are possibly well-known to some experts or implicitly contained in some articles.
Lemma B.1
Suppose that \(\{X_i\}_{i\ge 1}\) is a sequence of i.i.d. random variables, having the same distribution as X.
-
(1)
If \({\mathbb {P}}(X\ge x)=\Theta (1) e^{-\lambda x^{\alpha }}\) as \(x\rightarrow \infty \) with some \(\lambda >0\) and \(\alpha >1\), then for \(a>0\), and for a sequence of integers \((t_n)\) such that \(t_n=o(n^{\frac{1}{3}})\) and \(t_n\rightarrow \infty \), we have
$$\begin{aligned} \limsup _{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{t_n^{\alpha -1}}{n^{\alpha /2}}\log {\mathbb {P}}\left( \sum _{i=1}^{t_n}X_i \ge a\sqrt{n}\right) \le - \lambda a^\alpha . \end{aligned}$$ -
(2)
If \({\mathbb {P}}(X\ge x)=\Theta (1) e^{-e^{x^{\alpha }}}\) as \(x\rightarrow \infty \) with some \(\alpha >0\), then for any \(a>0\) and any sequence \(t_n\uparrow \infty \) such that \(t_n=o\left( \frac{\sqrt{n}}{(\log n)^{2/\alpha +1}}\right) \),
$$\begin{aligned} \liminf _{n\rightarrow \infty }\frac{t_n^{\alpha }}{n^{{\alpha }/{2}}}\log \left[ -\log {\mathbb {P}}\left( \sum _{i=1}^{t_n}X_i \ge a\sqrt{n}\right) \right] \ge a^{\alpha }. \end{aligned}$$
Proof
Notice that \({\mathbb {P}}\left( \sum _{i=1}^{t_n}X_i \ge a\sqrt{n}\right) \le {\mathbb {P}}\left( \sum _{i=1}^{t_n}X_i^+ \ge a\sqrt{n}\right) \), where \(X_i^+=X_i\vee 0.\) Thus it suffices to prove the desired results when X is non-negative. In the sequel of this proof, we always assume \(X\ge 0 \) a.s. Observe that
Proof of (1): Note that there exists \(c_{16}>0\) such that for any \(x\ge 0\),
Therefore,
Meanwhile,
where in the third inequality we use the fact that the convexity of mapping \(x\mapsto x^\alpha \) for \(\alpha >1\) implies
Plugging (B.2) and (B.3) into (B.1), we obtain that
which suffices to conclude (1) of Lemma B.1.
Proof of (2): Similarly, for any \(\varepsilon >0\) there exists some constant \(c_{17}\ge 1\) such that
where we use the fact
Consequently,
We have completed the proof. \(\square \)
Appendix C
We shall show how the arguments in Sect. 2.3 in [13] can be extended to our settings in Theorems 1.5 and 1.6.
Proof of Theorem 1.5
Lower bound. Since \(\text {ess sup }X=L\), then for any \(0<\eta <L/2\),
According to the property of \(I_A(p)\), for any \(\varepsilon >\frac{2\eta }{L}\), there exists \(x\in {{\mathbb {R}}}\), \(\delta >0\) such that for all \(y\in \text {sgn}(x)\left( x\sqrt{n}, x\sqrt{n}+\frac{2\eta x\sqrt{n}}{L}\right] =:B\),
Set
and
By the Markov property,
Note that
Meanwhile, for any \(\zeta \in {{\mathcal {M}}}_{\eta }\), as \({\bar{Z}}_m^{\zeta }(\sqrt{n}A)\ge \min _{y\in \zeta }{\bar{Z}}^{\delta _y}_m(\sqrt{n}A)\) because of (3.18),
Then by exactly the same arguments for bounding (2.24) in [13], we have for any \(\zeta \in {{\mathcal {M}}}_{\eta }\),
which, together with (C.1) and (C.2), gives
Letting \(\eta \downarrow 0\) yields the lower bound.
Upper bound. For any \(\varepsilon >0\), set
Then we only need to copy the arguments from (2.29) to (2.34) in [13] to conclude that
\(\square \)
Proof of Theorem 1.6
Lower bound We first notice that there exist \(L>L_0>0\) such that \({\mathbb {P}}(X\in (L_0, L))>\frac{1}{4}(1-{\mathbb {P}}(X=0))>0.\) Then for any n large enough, there exists \(z_n\in (L_0, L)\) such that
By property of \(J_A(p)\), we may find \(r\in (0,1),\, x\in {\mathbb R}\) and \(\delta >0\), such that for all \(y\in \text {sgn}(x)(|x|\sqrt{n}-L-2, |x|\sqrt{n}+L+2)=:B\),
Set
and
By the Markov property,
Notice that
by having all particles give birth to b children in the first s generations, move with step size only in \([z_n, z_n+\frac{1}{n})\) or only in \((-z_n, -\frac{1}{n}-z_n]\) in the first w generations (depending on the sign of x), and then alternate between \([z_n, z_n+\frac{1}{n})\) and \((-z_n-\frac{1}{n}, -z_n]\) steps in the succeeding q generations. So in the s-th generation, all the \(b^s\) particles are located in B if \(\frac{w}{n}<1.\) Again,like (C.3), for any \(\zeta \in {{\mathcal {M}}}_{n}\),
Then by exactly the same arguments for bounding (2.38) in [13], we have for any \(\zeta \in {{\mathcal {M}}}_{\eta }\),
which, together with (C.5) and (C.6), implies the lower bound.
Upper bound The proof for upper bound is also exactly the same as the one in [13]; see pages 12–13 there. We omit it here. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, X., He, H. On large deviation probabilities for empirical distribution of supercritical branching random walks with unbounded displacements. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields 175, 255–307 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-018-0891-4
Received:
Revised:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00440-018-0891-4