## LARGE DEVIATIONS FOR THE MAXIMUM OF A REDUCIBLE TWO-TYPE BRANCHING BROWNIAN MOTION

## HUI HE

ABSTRACT. We consider a two-type reducible branching Brownian motion, defined as a particle system on the real line in which particles of two types move according to independent Brownian motions and create offspring at a constant rate. Particles of type 1 can give birth to particles of types 1 and 2, but particles of type 2 only give births to descendants of type 2. Under some specific conditions, Belloum and Mallein in [5] showed that the maximum position Mt of all particles alive at time t , suitably centered by a deterministic function mt , converge weakly. In this work, we are interested in the decay rate of the following upper large deviation probability, as t → ∞ ,

$$\mathbb { P } ( M _ { t } \geq \theta m _ { t } ), \ \theta > 1.$$

We shall show that the decay rate function exhibits phase transitions depending on certain relations between θ , the variance of the underlying Brownian motion and the branching rate.

## 1. INTRODUCTION AND MAIN RESULTS

Branching Brownian motion (BBM) is a spatial branching process of great interests in recent years. On the one hand, its connection with the partial differential Fisher-Kolmogorov-PetrovskyPiskunov (F-KPP) equation brings out many studies on both probabilistic and analytic sides, see for instance, [1, 3, 10, 16, 18]. On the other hand, it is the fundamental model to understand the BBM-universality class which includes the 2-dim Gaussian free field [8, 9] and 2-dim cover times [12], etc.

A one-dimensional standard binary branching Brownian motion is a continuous-time particle system on the real line which can be constructed as follows. It starts with one individual located at the origin at time 0 that moves according to a Brownian motion with variance σ 2 &gt; 0. After an independent exponential time of parameter β , the initial particle dies and gives birth to 2 children that start at the position their parent occupied at its death. These 2 children then move according to independent Brownian motions with variance σ 2 and give birth independently to their own children at rate β . The particle system keeps evolving in this fashion for all time.

In this work, we shall study the two-type reducible branching Brownian motion. This is a particle system on the real line in which particles possess a type in addition with their position. Particles of type 1 move according to Brownian motions with variance σ 2 and branch at rate β into two children of type 1. Additionally, they give birth to particles of type 2 at rate α . Particles of type 2 move according to Brownian motions with variance σ 2 2 and branch at rate β 2, but cannot give birth to descendants of type 1. Up to a dilation of time and space, in this work we shall always assume that β 2 = σ 2 = 1. This model has been studied extensively by many authors; see [7, 14, 15, 17].

With abuse of notation, for all t ≥ 0, we denote by N t the collection of individuals alive at time t for both the standard BBM and the two-type reducible BBM. And denote by N 1 t and N 2 t the set of particles of type 1 and type 2 at time t , respectively. For any u ∈ N ( ) t and s ≤ t , let X u s denote

Date

: April 8, 2025.

2010

Mathematics Subject Classification.

60F10, 60J80.

Key words and phrases. Branching Brownian motion, maximum, large deviation, two-type, reducible.

the position at time s of the individual u or its ancestor alive at that time. The maximum of the branching Brownian motion at time t is defined as

$$M _ { t } \coloneqq \max \{ X _ { t } ^ { u } \colon u \in \mathcal { N } ( t ) \}.$$

To distinguish the two-type reducible BBM and the standard BBM, we shall regard the standard BBM as ( σ 2 , β ) -BBM to emphasize the variance of the Brownian motion and the branching rate. We also denote by P σ 2 , β its law and write ¯ X u s for the position at time s of the individual u of a ( σ 2 , β ) -BBM. For ( σ 2 , β ) -BBM, the asymptotic behaviour of

$$\bar { M } _ { t } \coloneqq \max \{ \bar { X } _ { t } ^ { u } \colon u \in \mathcal { N } ( t ) \},$$

as t → ∞ , has been subjected to intense study, partly due to its link with the F-KPP reactiondiffusion equation, defined as

$$\partial _ { t } u ( t, x ) = \frac { 1 } { 2 } \partial _ { x } ^ { 2 } u ( t, x ) + ( 1 - u ( t, x ) ) - ( 1 - u ( t, x ) ) ^ { 2 }, \ \ t \geq 0, \, x \in \mathbb { R }.$$

Precisely, McKean [18] showed that

$$\mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, 1 } ( \bar { M } _ { t } \geq \sigma x ) = \bar { u } ( t, x ),$$

↦

where the function ( t , x ) → ¯ u t ( , x ) is the unique solution of (1) with initial condition ¯ u ( 0, x ) = 1 { x &lt; 0 } . With the help of (1), Bramson [10] proved that for a ( σ 2 , β ) -BBM,

$$\bar { M } _ { t } - \sqrt { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } \beta } t + \frac { 3 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 \beta / \sigma ^ { 2 } } } \ln t,$$

converges weakly, as t → ∞ . In particular, uniformly in x ∈ R , as t → ∞ ,

$$1 - \bar { u } ( t, \bar { m } _ { t } + x ) = \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, 1 } \left ( \frac { \bar { M } _ { t } } { \sigma } - \sqrt { 2 } t + \frac { 3 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \ln t \leq x \right ) \longrightarrow \bar { \omega } ( x ),$$

where ¯ is the travelling wave solution of the F-KPP equation at speed ω √ 2, which satisfies

$$\frac { 1 } { 2 } \bar { \omega } ^ { \prime \prime } + \sqrt { 2 } \bar { \omega } ^ { \prime } - \bar { \omega } ( 1 - \bar { \omega } ) = 0.$$

Lalley and Sellke [16] characterized ¯ ω in terms of a random shift of the Gumbel distribution by introducing the so-called derivative martingale.

Parallel results of (2) for the two-type reducible BBM were obtained in [5]. To state their results, we need to decompose the state space ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ R 2 + into three regions (see Figure 1 below for the phase diagram):

$$\mathcal { C } _ { \text{I} } & = \left \{ \left ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } \right ) \colon \sigma ^ { 2 } > \frac { \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta \leq 1 \} } } { \beta } + \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta > 1 \} } \frac { \beta } { 2 \beta - 1 } \right \}, \\ \mathcal { C } _ { \text{II} } & = \left \{ \left ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } \right ) \colon \sigma ^ { 2 } < \frac { \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta \leq 1 \} } } { \beta } + \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta > 1 \} } ( 2 - \beta ) \right \}, \\ \mathcal { C } _ { \text{III} } & = \left \{ \left ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } \right ) \colon \sigma ^ { 2 } + \beta > 2 \text{ and } \sigma ^ { 2 } < \frac { \beta } { 2 \beta - 1 } \right \}. \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots.$$

From Belloum and Mallein [5], we have:

$$M _ { t } - m _ { t }$$

FIGURE 1. Phase diagram of the two-type reducible BBM

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00532v4-figure-304fc808-fe8a-4335-916e-d23b1cb908a8.jpg)

converges weakly, as t → ∞ , where

$$m _ { t } = \begin{cases} \sqrt { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } \beta } t - \frac { 3 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 \beta / \sigma ^ { 2 } } } \ln t, & ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { 1 }, \\ \sqrt { 2 } t - \frac { 3 } { 2 \sqrt { 2 } } \ln t, & ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { \text{II} }, \\ \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } - \beta } { \sqrt { 2 ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) ( \beta - 1 ) } } t, & ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { \text{III} }. \end{cases}$$

From above, we see that if ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C I , the speed of the two-type reducible BBM is √ 2 βσ 2 , which is the same as particle s of type 1 alone, ignoring births of particles of type 2. Conversely, if ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C II , then the speed of the process is √ 2, equal to the speed of a single BBM of particles of type 2. Finally, if ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C III , the speed of the process is a mixture of the long-time asymptotic of the processes of particles of type 1 and 2, which is larger than max ( √ 2, √ 2 βσ 2 ) .

Weremark here that before the work of Belloum and Mallein [5], Biggins' work [7] was the first to consider the maximum of multi-type reducible branching random walks. After the work of Belloum and Mallein [5], as C I , C I I , C I I I does not cover all the possible values for ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ ( 0, ∞ ) 2 , Belloum [4] studied the case of β = σ 2 = 1. Later, Ma and Ren [17] studied the other cases and completed the phase diagram.

In this article, we study the large deviation probabilities for the maximum of a two-type reducible BBM. That is the convergence rate of the following probability

$$\mathbb { P } ( M _ { t } > \theta m _ { t } ), \ \theta > 1,$$

as t → ∞ . We divide the main result of our article into three theorems, one for each area the pair ( β σ , 2 ) belongs to.

Theorem 1.1. Assume ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C I . Then the following limit exists for any θ &gt; 1 ,

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) = A,$$

where if σ 2 ≥ 1 , then

$$A = \beta \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ),$$

and if β &gt; 1 and σ 2 &lt; 1 , then we have

$$A & = \begin{cases} \beta \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ), & \theta ^ { 2 } \leq \frac { ( \beta - 1 ) \sigma ^ { 2 } } { ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \beta }, \\ 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \beta \sigma ^ { 2 }, & \theta ^ { 2 } \geq \frac { ( \beta - 1 ) } { ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \sigma ^ { 2 } \beta }, \\ \frac { - 2 \sqrt { \beta ( \beta - 1 ) ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \sigma \theta + \beta - \sigma ^ { 2 } } } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } }, & \frac { ( \beta - 1 ) \sigma ^ { 2 } } { ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \beta } < \theta ^ { 2 } < \frac { ( \beta - 1 ) } { ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \sigma ^ { 2 } \beta }. \\ \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \, \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \end{cases}.$$

Theorem 1.2. Assume ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C II . Then the following limit exists for any θ &gt; 1 ,

$$\lim _ { t \rightarrow \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) = \colon A,$$

where if σ 2 ≤ 1 , we have

$$A = 1 - \theta ^ { 2 },$$

and if β ≤ 1, σ 2 &gt; 1 , we have

$$A = \begin{cases} 1 - \theta ^ { 2 }, & \theta ^ { 2 } \leq \frac { ( 1 - \beta ) } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) }, \\ \beta - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } }, & \theta ^ { 2 } \geq \frac { ( 1 - \beta ) } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } \sigma ^ { 4 }, \\ \frac { 2 \sqrt { ( 1 - \beta ) ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } \theta + \beta - \sigma ^ { 2 } } } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } }, & \frac { ( 1 - \beta ) } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } < \theta ^ { 2 } < \frac { ( 1 - \beta ) } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } \sigma ^ { 4 }. \\ \cdot & \quad \lambda \quad \lambda \quad \mu \quad \mu \quad \mu \quad \mu \quad \mu \quad \nu \\ \end{cases}.$$

Theorem 1.3. Assume ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C III . Then for any θ &gt; 1 , we have

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \xi \theta t \right ) = \begin{cases} 1 - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 }, & \theta ^ { 2 } \geq \frac { 2 ( \beta - 1 ) } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } \frac { 1 } { \xi ^ { 2 } }, \\ \beta - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } }, & \theta ^ { 2 } \leq \frac { 2 ( \beta - 1 ) } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } \frac { \sigma ^ { 4 } } { \xi ^ { 2 } }, \\ \frac { \sqrt { 2 ( 1 - \beta ) - \theta ^ { 2 } } \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - \beta \right ) ^ { 2 } - 1 } { \sqrt { 2 ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } } + 1, & \frac { 2 ( \beta - 1 ) } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } \frac { \sigma ^ { 4 } } { \xi ^ { 2 } } < \theta ^ { 2 } < \frac { 2 ( \beta - 1 ) } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } \frac { 1 } { \xi ^ { 2 } }, \end{cases}$$

$$\ w h e r e \, \xi = \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } - \beta } { \sqrt { 2 ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) ( \beta - 1 ) } }.$$

Let us mention here that in the context of standard ( 1, 1 ) -BBM (i.e., σ 2 = 1, β = 1), one would have: for any θ &gt; 1 and x ∈ R ,

$$( 3 )$$

$$\text{e: for any } \vartheta > 1 \, \text{and} \, x \in \mathfrak { R }, \\ \lim _ { t \rightarrow \infty } \sqrt { t } e ^ { ( \theta ^ { 2 } - 1 ) t } \mathbb { P } _ { 1, 1 } ( \bar { M } _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t + x ) & = \lim _ { t \rightarrow \infty } \sqrt { t } e ^ { ( \theta ^ { 2 } - 1 ) t } \bar { u } ( t, \sqrt { 2 } \theta t + x ) \\ & = e ^ { \sqrt { 2 } x } C ( \theta, \bar { u } ),$$

where C ( θ , ¯ u ) is a constant depending only on θ and ¯; see [11], [2] and [6]. In this work, we only u obtain the exponential decay rates for the large deviation probabilities for the maximum of a twotype reducible BBM. It is possible to obtain a form as (3) with the help of the so-called truncated second moment method and the F-KPP equation. Our method may also apply to study the cases of ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ ∂ C ∩ I ∂ C II or ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ ∂ C II ∩ ∂ C III or ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ ∂ C ∩ I ∂ C III ; see [17] for related results.

In the next section, we will present some technical lemmas borrowed from the existing literature. The proofs for Theorems 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 will be given in Sections 3, 4 and 5, respectively.

## 2. TECHNICAL LEMMAS

Lemma2.1. ([13], Lemma 2.1) Let X be a centered Gaussian random variable with variance σ 2 &gt; 0 . Then

$$\mathbb { P } ( X > a ) = ( 2 \pi ) ^ { - 1 / 2 } ( \sigma / a ) e ^ { - \frac { a ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } } } \left ( 1 + O ( \sigma ^ { 2 } / a ^ { 2 } ) \right ), \ \ a s \, a / \sigma \to \infty,$$

with the r.h.s. above without error term being an upper bound valid for any a &gt; 0.

If u ∈ N 2 t , we denote by T u ( ) the time at which the oldest ancestor of type 2 of u was born. The set B of particles of type 2 that are born from a particle of type 1, which can be defined as

$$\mathfrak { B } \coloneqq \{ u \in \cup _ { t \geq 0 } \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \colon T ( u ) = b _ { u } \},$$

where bu is the birth time of u . We observe that B can be thought of as a Poisson point process with random intensity.

Lemma 2.2. ([5], Lemma 4.2) Set F 1 = σ ( X u t , u ∈ N 1 t , t ≥ 0 ) . The point measure ∑ u ∈ B δ ( X u s , s ≤ T u ( )) conditionally on F 1 is a Poisson point process with intensity α d t × ∑ u ∈N 1 t δ ( X u s , s ≤ t ) .

The results in the following proposition are variations of the so-called many-to-one lemma.

Lemma 2.3. For all measurable non-negative functionals f and g, we have

$$\mathbb { E } \left [ \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } } ^ { \lambda } f ( X _ { s } ^ { u }, s \leq t ) \right ] = e ^ { \beta t } \mathbb { E } \left [ f ( \sigma B _ { s }, s \leq t ) \right ]$$

and

$$\mathbb { E } & \left [ \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } } g ( ( X _ { s } ^ { u }, s \leq t ), T ( u ) ) \right ] \\ & = \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \mathbb { E } \left [ g ( ( \sigma B _ { u \wedge s } + ( B _ { u } - B _ { u \wedge s } ), u \leq t ), s ) \right ] \mathrm d s. \\.. \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdot \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdelta \, \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdoplus \, \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots \, \cdots$$

Proof. The first result is just the usual many-to-one lemma. The second can be found in Proposition 4.1 in [5]. □

## 3. PROOF OF THEOREM 1.1

In this section, we consider the case that

$$( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { I } = \left \{ ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \, \colon \sigma ^ { 2 } > \frac { \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta \leq 1 \} } } { \beta } + \frac { \beta \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta > 1 \} } } { 2 \beta - 1 } \right \}.$$

Before going into the details, we would like to give a rough explanation about the general strategy to all proofs. Our method is quite simple and direct. For the upper bound, we just use the first moment argument. Then the task is reduced to understand the birth time T u ( ) of the particle whose position at time t is larger than √ 2 βσ θ 2 2 · t . For the lower bound, we may think that oldest ancestor of type 2 of the maximal particle at time t was born at some time u t 0 in a position around x t 0 for some u 0 and x 0. So the limit A is consist of two parts: the effort of some type 1 particles to achieve position x t 0 at time u t 0 and the effort that some type 2 particles to achieve position √ 2 βσ θ 2 2 · t -x t 0 at time t -u t 0 . The same strategy also apply well to the other two cases.

## 3.1. Upper bound.

Proof. First,

$$P r o o f. \ F i r s t, & \quad \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ = & \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t }, X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ \leqslant \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 }, X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) + \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 }, X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ = & \colon I + \text{II}.$$

Then by Lemma 2.3 and (4), we have

$$\text{we have} \\ \text{I} & \leq e ^ { \beta t } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & \leq O ( 1 ) \cdot \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { t } } \cdot e ^ { \beta t } \cdot e ^ { - \frac { 2 \beta \theta ^ { 2 } t ^ { 2 } } { 2 t } } \\ & = \frac { O ( 1 ) } { \sqrt { t } } \cdot e ^ { \beta ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } ) t }.$$

On the other hand, set

$$\mathfrak { B } _ { t } = \{ u \in \mathfrak { B } \, \colon T ( u ) < t \}.$$

According to construction of our model, we have

$$\times _ { t } - \mathfrak { l } ^ { \prime } \, \subset \, \sim \, \cdot \, \lambda ^ { \prime } _ { t } \, \rightarrow \, \cdot \, \mathfrak { l } ^ { \prime } _ { t }. \\ \text{o construction of our model, we have} \\ \mathbb { P } \left ( \, \exists \, u \in \mathfrak { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \, \right ) \\ = \, \mathbb { P } \left ( \, \exists \, u \, \in \mathfrak { B } _ { t } \, \colon X _ { T ( u ) } ^ { u } + M _ { t - T ( u ) } ^ { u } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \, \right ) \\ = \, 1 - \mathbb { P } \left ( \, \bigtriangledown \, u \in \mathfrak { B } _ { t } \, \colon X _ { T ( u ) } ^ { u } + M _ { t - T ( u ) } ^ { u } < \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \, \right ) \\ = \, 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \, \prod _ { u \in \mathfrak { B } _ { t } } \varphi _ { t } \left ( X _ { T ( u ) } ^ { u }, T ( u ) \right ) \right ] \\ = \, 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \, \exp \left ( - \, \sum _ { u \in \mathfrak { B } _ { t } } - \ln \varphi _ { t } \left ( X _ { T ( u ) } ^ { u }, T ( u ) \right ) \right ) \right ], \\ \\ / \quad \, \, \,$$

where

$$1 - \varphi _ { t } ( x, s ) = \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x \right ) = \mathbb { P } _ { 1, 1 } \left ( \bar { M } _ { t - s } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x \right ).$$

and { M u t -T u ( ) : u ∈ B t } are independent random variables such that M u t -s has the same law as ¯ Mt -s under P 1,1 . Applying Lemmas 2.2, we have

$$= 1 - \mathbb { E } \, \left | \exp \left \{ - \alpha \, \int _ { \lambda } \, \sum \, \bar { u } \, \left ( \, t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } \cdot t - X _ { s } ^ { u } } \, \right ) \, \mathrm d s \, \right \} \, \right | \,.$$

$$\text{quad} \colon \colon & \colon \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon \\ & \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & = 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } } \tilde { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - X _ { s } ^ { u } \right ) d s \right \} \right ]. \\ \dots & \dots & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon & \colon$$

With Lemma 2.3 in hand, applying elementary inequality 1 - -e x ≤ x for x ≥ 0, we have

$$\text{With Lemma } 2. 3 \text{ in hand, applying elementary inequality } 1 - e ^ { - x } \leq x \text{ for } x \geq 0, \text{ we have} \\ \text{II} & \leq \mathbb { E } \left [ \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } } \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - X _ { s } ^ { u } \right ) \text{d} s \right ] \\ & = \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } \text{d} s \int _ { - \infty } ^ { + \infty } e ^ { \beta s } \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x \right ) \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \sigma ^ { 2 } } s } e ^ { - \frac { x ^ { 2 } t } { 2 \pi ^ { 2 } s } } \text{d} x \\ ( 7 ) & = \alpha t ^ { 3 / 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \text{d} s \int _ { - \infty } ^ { + \infty } e ^ { \beta s t } \bar { u } \left ( ( 1 - s ) t, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x t \right ) \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \sigma ^ { 2 } s } } e ^ { - \frac { x ^ { 2 } t } { 2 \pi ^ { 2 } s } } \text{d} x. \\ \text{By } ( 3 ), \text{for any } 0 < s < 1 \text{ and } x < \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - \sqrt { 2 } ( 1 - s ), \text{ we have, as } t \rightarrow \infty,$$

By (3), for any 0 &lt; s &lt; 1 and x &lt; √ 2 βσ θ 2 2 -√ 2 1 ( -s ) , we have, as t → ∞ ,

$$\bar { u } \left ( ( 1 - s ) t, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x t \right ) \leq O ( 1 ) \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { t } } \exp \left \{ \left ( 1 - s - \frac { ( \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - x ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( 1 - s ) } \right ) t \right \}.$$

Thus

$$I _ { 2 } \leq O ( 1 ) t \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \mathrm d u \int _ { - \infty } ^ { + \infty } e ^ { f _ { 1 } ^ { * } ( u, x ) t } \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { u } } \mathrm d x,$$

where for 0 &lt; u &lt; 1, x ∈ R ,

$$f _ { 1 } ^ { * } ( u, x ) = \beta u - \frac { x ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } u } + \left ( 1 - u - \frac { ( \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - x ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( 1 - u ) } \right ) ^ { } { 1 } _ { \{ x < \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - \sqrt { 2 } \{ 1 - u ) \} },$$

↦

By studying function x → ∗ f 1 ( u x , ) , one can see that

$$\max _ { x \in \mathbb { R } } f _ { 1 } ^ { * } ( u, x ) \ & = \ f _ { 1 } ^ { * } ( u, x ^ { * } ( u ) ) = \colon f _ { 1 } ( u ) \\ & = \begin{cases} ( \beta - 1 ) u + 1 - \frac { \beta z ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 1 - u + \sigma ^ { 2 } u }, & \text{if $u(\sigma^{2}-1)<\sqrt{\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}}-1$}, \\ \beta u - \frac { ( \sqrt { \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - ( 1 - u ) ) ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } u }, & \text{if $u(\sigma^{2}-1) \geq \sqrt{\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}}-1$}, \end{cases}$$

with

$$x ^ { * } ( u ) = \begin{cases} \frac { \sqrt { 2 \beta \theta \sigma ^ { 3 } u } } { 1 - u + \sigma ^ { 2 } u }, & \text{if $u(\sigma^{2}-1)<\sqrt{\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}-1$}, \\ \sqrt{2\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}-\sqrt{2}(1-u)$}, & \text{if $u(\sigma^{2}-1) \geq \sqrt{\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}-1$}, \end{cases}$$

where u ( σ 2 -1 ) &lt; √ βσ θ 2 2 -1 is equivalent to 2 βθσ 3 u -2 &lt; √ 2 βσ θ 2 2 -2 1 ( -u ) . Furthermore,

√ 1 u + σ u √

$$f _ { 1 } ^ { \prime } ( u ) = \begin{cases} \beta - 1 + \frac { \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } { ( 1 - u + \sigma ^ { 2 } u ) ^ { 2 } }, & \text{if $u(\sigma^{2}-1)<\sqrt{\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}-1$}$,} \\ \frac { ( \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) u ^ { 2 } + ( \sqrt { \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - 1 ) ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } u ^ { 2 } }, & \text{if $u(\sigma^{2}-1)<\sqrt{\beta\sigma^{2}\theta^{2}-1$}$.} \end{cases}$$

$$\sigma ^ { 2 } u ^ { 2 }$$

Also notice that for ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C I , we always have

$$\beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \geq \begin{cases} 1, & \beta \leq 1, \\ \frac { \beta ^ { 2 } } { 2 \beta - 1 } \geq 1, & \beta > 1. \end{cases}$$

Then we have two cases.

Case I. If ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C I and σ 2 ≥ 1, then f ′ 1 ( u ) ≥ 0 for 0 &lt; u &lt; 1. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( 1 ) and hence

$$\max _ { 0 \leq u \leq 1, \, x \in \mathbb { R } } f _ { 1 } ^ { * } ( u, x ) = f _ { 1 } \, ( 1 ) = \beta ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } ).$$

Hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \sup _ { t } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \leq \beta \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ).$$

↦

Case II. If ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C I and β &gt; 1, σ 2 &lt; 1, then obviously u → f ′ 1 ( u ) is decreasing. Then we have three subcases.

First, if θ 2 &lt; ( β -1 ) σ 2 ( 1 -σ 2 ) β , which implies f ′ 1 ( 1 ) &gt; 0, then max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( 1 ) and

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \sup _ { t } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \leq \beta \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ).$$

Second, if θ 2 &gt; ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) σ β 2 , which means f ′ 1 ( 0 ) &lt; 0, then max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( 0 ) and

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \sup _ { t } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \leq 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \beta \sigma ^ { 2 }.$$

Last, if ( β -1 ) σ 2 ( 1 -σ 2 ) β ≤ θ 2 ≤ ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) σ β 2 , then one can check that f ′ 1 ( 0 ) ≥ 0 and f ′ 1 ( 1 ) ≤ 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( u 0 ) with

$$u _ { 0 } = \frac { \sqrt { \left | \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 } { 1 - \beta } \right | } \cdot \sigma \theta \cdot \sqrt { \beta } - 1 } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }.$$

$$u _ { 0 } = \frac { v + v + v } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }.$$

Therefore,

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \sup _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \leq f _ { 1 } ( u _ { 0 } ) = \frac { - 2 \sqrt { \beta ( \beta - 1 ) \, ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) } \sigma \theta + \beta - \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

This proves the upper bound.

## Remark. Notice that

$$\text{Var} \left ( \sigma B _ { s } + B _ { t } - B _ { s } \right ) = \sigma ^ { 2 } \cdot s + ( t - s ).$$

Then applying Lemma 2.3 and (4), we also have

$$\text{ing Lemma } & 2. 3 \text{ and } ( 4 ), \text{ we also have} \\ I _ { 2 } & \leq \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { s } + B _ { t } - B _ { s } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \text{d} s \\ & \leq \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \cdot \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } s + t - s \right ) } } \cdot e ^ { - \frac { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } t ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } s + t - s \right ) } } \text{d} s \\ & = \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } e ^ { f _ { 1 } ( u ) t } \cdot \frac { \sqrt { t } } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \left ( ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) u + 1 \right ) } } \text{d} u.$$

$$= \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } e ^ { f _ { 1 } ( u ) t } \cdot \frac { \sqrt { t } } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \left ( ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) u + 1 \right ) } } \mathrm d u.$$

If ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C I , β ≤ 1 and θ 2 ≤ ( 1 -β σ ) 2 ( σ 2 -1 ) β , then one can check that max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( u 0 ) . So we will get

$$\lim _ { \substack { t \to \infty \\ \dots \ \theta \, - } } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \leq f ^ { \prime } ( u _ { 0 } ),$$

which is larger than β ( 1 -θ 2 ) . Thus we would get a rough upper bound.

## 3.2. Lower bound for Theorem 1.1. Notice that

$$\mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right )$$

$$\geqslant \max \left \{ \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ), \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \right \}.$$

First, from (3), we have

(16)

$$\begin{array} { c c c } \cdot & \lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } \, \colon \, X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) & = \lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & = \beta \left ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } \right ). \end{array}$$

Recall (6). Then

$$\text{Recall} \left ( 6 \right ) \text{ Then} & \\ \text{P} & \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \colon X _ { t } ^ { \mu } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & \geq 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \int _ { I _ { t } } \sum _ { u \in \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) } \tilde { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { t } \right ) \text{d} s \right \} \right ] \\ & = 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \int _ { I _ { t } } \left | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) \right | \tilde { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { t } \right ) \text{d} s \right \} \right ],$$

□

where I t ⊂ [ 0, t ] is an interval of length 1, xt ∈ R is a deterministic function of t , and

$$\mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( a ) = \{ u \in \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } \colon X _ { s } ^ { u } \geq a \}.$$

Both I t and xt will be determined later from case to case. Then, applying Jensen's inequality and Fubini's theorem, gives

$$& \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & \geq \int _ { I _ { t } } 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \left | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) \right | \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { t } \right ) \right \} \right ] \mathrm d s.$$

3.2.1. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( 0 ) . Choose

$$I _ { t } = [ \varepsilon t, \varepsilon t + 1 ], \ \ x _ { t } = - \varepsilon t,$$

for ε &gt; 0 small enough. Then for s ∈ I t ,

$$\text{for $\varepsilon > 0$ small enough. } \, \i \, \text{in} \, \text{for $s\in\,1_{t}$,} \\ \quad & \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \left | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) \right | \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { t } \right ) \right \} \right ] \\ \quad & \leq \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t + \varepsilon t \right ) \right \}, | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( - \varepsilon t ) | \geq 1 \right ] \\ & \quad + \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( - \varepsilon t ) | = 0 \right ) \\ = \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t + \varepsilon t \right ) \right \} \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { s } \geq - \varepsilon t \right ) + \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { s } < - \varepsilon t \right ).$$

This, together with (18), gives

$$\i i v e, \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \i i v e, \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon & \, \text{g} \, \text{w} \, \colon \\ & \, \mathbb { P } \left ( \, \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \, \geqslant \, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & \, \geqslant \, \int _ { I _ { t } } \left ( 1 - \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t + \varepsilon t \right ) \right \} \right ) \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { \varepsilon t + s } \, \geqslant - \varepsilon t \right ) d s \\ \sum \, \quad \, \cdot \, \cdot \, \quad \, \varepsilon \, \quad \,.$$

Then applying (3), we have

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \lim _ { t \rightarrow \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \bar { u } \left ( t - \varepsilon t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t + \varepsilon t \right ) \geq 1 - \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 },$$

uniformly for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . We further notice that ]

$$\mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { s } \geq - \varepsilon t \right ) \rightarrow 1, \ \text{ as } t \rightarrow \infty,$$

uniformly for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . Then applying Jensen's inequality and Fatou's lemma again, one has ]

$$\liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) = 1 - \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } \geq \beta ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } ),$$

where the last inequality holds if θ 2 ≥ ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) β . This proves Theorem 1.1 for the case of θ 2 ≥ ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) σ β 2 , when σ 2 &lt; 1 and β &gt; 1.

3.2.2. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( 1 ) . This case corresponds to the case that

$$\int \nolimits _ { \ell }$$

$$\dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \Delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta\delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \ delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \dia \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \ delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \ delta delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \delta \ d } \right.$$

One can make use (15) and (16) directly to conclude. We are done.

□

3.2.3. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( u 0 ) . This corresponds to the case that β &gt; 1, σ 2 &lt; 1, and

$$\frac { ( \beta - 1 ) \sigma ^ { 2 } } { ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \, \beta } \leq \theta ^ { 2 } \leq \frac { ( \beta - 1 ) } { ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \, \sigma ^ { 2 } \beta }.$$

Recall u 0 from (12). We also recall that

$$f _ { 1 } ( u _ { 0 } ) = \frac { - 2 \sqrt { \beta ( \beta - 1 ) \, ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) } \sigma \theta + \beta - \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } \geq f _ { 1 } ( 1 ) = \beta ( 1 - \theta ^ { 2 } ).$$

Choose

$$I _ { t } = [ u _ { 0 } t, u _ { 0 } t + 1 ], \ \ x _ { t } = x _ { 0 } t,$$

for some 0 &lt; x 0 &lt; √ 2 βσ θ 2 2 , whose value will be determined later. Then for ε &gt; 0 small enough and s ∈ I t ,

$$\begin{array} { c } \dots \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot, \\ \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \left | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) \right | \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { t } \right ) \right \} \right ] \\ \leq \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) \right \} \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { 0 } t ) | \geq 1 \right ) + \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { 0 } t ) | = 0 \right ), \end{array}$$

where

$$x _ { 0 } = \frac { \sqrt { 2 \beta } \theta u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 3 } } { 1 - u _ { 0 } + u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

Therefore,

$$\mathbb { e }, & & \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u & \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & \quad \geq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left ( 1 - \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - u _ { 0 } t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) \right \} \right ) \\ & \quad \times \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { 0 } t ) | \geq 1 \right ) \mathrm d s. \\ \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot$$

Furthermore, the fact that f ′ 1 ( u 0 ) = 0 gives

$$1 - u _ { 0 } + u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } = \sqrt { \frac { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } { \beta - 1 } } \sqrt { \beta } \sigma \theta.$$

Then

$$x _ { 0 } = \sqrt { 2 } \sigma ^ { 2 } \sqrt { \frac { \beta - 1 } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } } u _ { 0 } > \sqrt { 2 \beta } \sigma u _ { 0 }$$

and

$$\int _ { \substack { \mathfrak { c } ^ { 2 } \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - x _ { 0 } = \sqrt { 2 \beta } \sigma \theta \frac { 1 - u _ { 0 } } { 1 - u _ { 0 } + u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } } = \sqrt { 2 } \sqrt { \frac { \beta - 1 } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } } ( 1 - u _ { 0 } ) > \sqrt { 2 } ( 1 - u _ { 0 } ),$$

because of

$$\sigma ^ { 2 } \geq \frac { \beta } { 2 \beta - 1 } > 2 - \beta, \quad \text{for } \beta > 1.$$

Therefore,

$$\frac { \left ( \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - x _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } > 1, \quad \text{for} \, \beta > 1.$$

Thus applying (3) again, we have

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \bar { u } \left ( t - u _ { 0 } t - s, \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) \\ \geq \left ( 1 - \frac { \left ( \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - x _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ),$$

uniform for s ∈ [ 0, 1 ] and

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { 0 } t ) | \geq 1 \right ) & = \lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } > x _ { 0 } t \right ) \\ & = \left ( 1 - \frac { x _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } u _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } \right ) \beta u _ { 0 } = \beta u _ { 0 } - \frac { x _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } u _ { 0 } }, \\ \intertext { a$$

uniform for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . Then applying Jensen's inequality and Fatou's lemma, one has ]

$$\mathfrak { s } \in [ 0, 1 ]. \, & \text{Then applying Jensen} ^ { \prime } s \, \text{inequality and Fatou} ^ { \prime } s \, \text{lemma}, \, \text{one has} \\ & \liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \, \exists \, u \, \in \, \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geq \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \\ & \geq \beta u _ { 0 } - \frac { x _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } u _ { 0 } } + \left ( 1 - \frac { \left ( \sqrt { 2 \beta \sigma ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } - x _ {$$

$$& = ( \beta - 1 ) u _ { 0 } + 1 - \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } \beta \theta ^ { 2 } } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) \, u _ { 0 } + 1 } \\ & = \frac { - 2 \sqrt { \beta ( \beta - 1 ) \, ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } ) } \sigma \theta + \beta - \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } }. \\. &. &. &. &. &. &.$$

This proves Theorem 1.1 for the case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 1 ( u ) = f 1 ( u 0 ) . We are done.

## 4. PROOF OF THEOREM 1.2

In this section, we always suppose that

$$( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { \text{II} } = \left \{ ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \, \colon \sigma ^ { 2 } < \frac { \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta \leq 1 \} } } { \beta } + \mathbb { 1 } _ { \{ \beta > 1 \} } ( 2 - \beta ) \right \}.$$

One can use arguments similar to those in Section 3. We just replace √ 2 βσ θ 2 by √ 2 . However, θ for the upper bound we have a simpler method.

## 4.1. Upper bound for Theorem 1.2. We first consider the upper bound.

Proof. First,

$$\text{Proof. First,} \\ \mathbb { P } & \left ( M _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ \leqslant 2 \max \left [ e ^ { \beta t } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ), \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { s } + B _ { t } - B _ { s } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) d s \right ] \\ = \colon 2 \max ( I, I I ).$$

By (4), we have

$$I \leq O ( 1 ) \cdot \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { t } } \cdot e ^ { \beta t } \cdot e ^ { - \frac { 2 \theta ^ { 2 } t ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } t } } = \frac { O ( 1 ) } { \sqrt { t } } \cdot e ^ { \left ( \beta - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } } \right ) t }.$$

and by Lemma 2.3, we also have

$$( 2 0 )$$

$$\text{ia 2.3, we also have} \\ \text{II} & \leq \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { s } + B _ { t } - B _ { s } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 \theta ^ { 2 } } \cdot t \right ) \text{d} s \\ & \leq \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \cdot \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } s + t - s \right ) } } \cdot e ^ { - \frac { 2 \theta ^ { 2 } t ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } s + t - s \right ) } } \text{d} s \\ & = \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } e ^ { f _ { 2 } ( u ) t } \cdot \frac { \sqrt { t } } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \left ( ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) u + 1 \right ) } } \text{d} u,$$

where

$$f _ { 2 } ( u ) = ( \beta - 1 ) u + 1 - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) \, u + 1 }, \ \ u \in ( 0, 1 ).$$

Then we have several cases.

$$\text{Case I.} \left ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } \right ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { \text{II} } \text{ and } \beta > 1.$$

↦

In this case u → ′ f 2 ( u ) is increasing and f ′ 2 ( 1 ) &lt; 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( 0 ) and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \leq 1 - \theta ^ { 2 }.$$

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { \mu } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right )$$

$$\text{Case III. $(\beta,\sigma^{2}) \in \mathcal{C}_{II}$ and $\beta \leq 1,\sigma^{2}<1$.}$$

In this case f ′ 2 ( u ) &lt; 0 for all u ∈ [ 0, 1 , Thus max0 ] ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( 0 ) and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \leq 1 - \theta ^ { 2 }.$$

↦

Case III. ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C II and β ≤ 1, σ 2 ≥ 1. In this case, u → ′ f 2 ( u ) is decreasing. When θ 2 &lt; ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) , then f ′ 2 ( 0 ) &lt; 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( 0 ) and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \leq 1 - \theta ^ { 2 }.$$

When θ 2 &gt; ( 1 -β ) ( σ 2 -1 ) σ 4 , then f ′ 2 ( 1 ) &gt; 0, Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( 1 ) and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \leq \beta - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

When ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) ≤ θ 2 ≤ ( 1 -β ) ( σ 2 -1 ) σ 4 , then f ′ 2 ( 0 ) ≥ 0 and f ′ 2 ( 1 ) ≤ 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( u 0 ) with f ′ 2 ( u 0 ) = 0. Then we have

$$u _ { 0 } = \frac { \sqrt { \left | \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 } { 1 - \beta } \right | } \cdot \theta - 1 } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }$$

$$u _ { 0 } = \frac { \mathcal { V } + \mu _ { \mu _ { \mu _ { \mu _ { \nu } } } } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }$$

and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \leq f _ { 2 } ( u _ { 0 } ) = \frac { 2 \sqrt { \left ( \beta - 1 \right ) \left ( 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } \right ) \theta } + \beta - \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

$$s$$

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/2408.00532v4-figure-1bbbffe0-57ef-4dd4-95cc-ea610ab0e0f1.jpg)

## 4.2. Lower bound for Theorem 1.2. Notice that

$$4. 2. & \text{ Lower bound for } I \text{ theorem } 1. 2. & \text{ Notice that} \\ & \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ & \geqslant \max \left \{ \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ), \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \right \}.$$

First, from (3), we have

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) & = \lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { t } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ & = \beta - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } }. \\ \mu \quad. \,. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad. \quad.$$

By similar reasoning as (17) and (18), we have

$$\Gamma \text{reasoning as } & \, \left ( \Gamma \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ & \, \geq \int _ { I _ { t } } 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \exp \left \{ - \alpha \left | \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) \right | \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 } \theta t - x _ { t } \right ) \right \} \right ] \text{d} s, \\ - \, \omega \, \omega \, \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \, \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \cdots$$

where I t ⊂ [ 0, t ] is an interval of length 1, xt ∈ R is a deterministic function of t . Both I t and xt will be determined later from case to case. Recall from (21) that

$$f _ { 2 } ( u ) = ( \beta - 1 ) u + 1 - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) \, u + 1 }, \ \ u \in ( 0, 1 ).$$

4.2.1. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( 0 ) . This corresponds to the cases that β &gt; 1, or β ≤ 1, σ 2 ≤ 1, or β ≤ 1, σ 2 &gt; 1 and θ 2 &lt; ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) . Choose

$$I _ { t } = [ \varepsilon t, \varepsilon t + 1 ], \ \ x _ { t } = - \varepsilon t,$$

for ε &gt; 0 small enough. Then

$$\text{for $\varepsilon >\mathfrak{u}$} & \text{man enough.                                                                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                        \text{for $\varepsilon >\mathfrak{u}$} \text{man enough.                                                                                                                                                                                                 
      & \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geq \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ & \geq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left ( 1 - \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - \epsilon t - s, \sqrt { 2 } \theta t + \epsilon t \right ) \right \} \right ) \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { \epsilon t + s } \geq - \epsilon t \right ) \text{d} s. \\. &. &. &. &.$$

Then applying (3), we have

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \liminf _ { t \rightarrow \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \sqrt { 2 } \theta t + \varepsilon t \right ) \geq 1 - \theta ^ { 2 }.$$

uniformly for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . We further notice that ]

$$\mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { \varepsilon t + s } \geq - \varepsilon t \right ) \rightarrow 1, \ \text{ as } t \rightarrow \infty,$$

uniformly for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . Then applying Jensen's inequality and Fatou's lemma, one has ]

$$\liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \geq 1 - \theta ^ { 2 }.$$

This proves Theorem 1.2 for the cases that β &gt; 1, or β ≤ 1, σ 2 ≤ 1, or β ≤ 1, σ 2 &gt; 1 and θ 2 &lt; ( β -1 ) ( 1 -σ 2 ) , since 1 -θ 2 ≥ β -θ 2 σ 2 in all above cases.

4.2.2. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( 1 ) . This case corresponds to the case that β ≤ 1, 1 &lt; σ 2 ≤ 1 β and θ 2 ≥ ( 1 -β ) ( σ 2 -1 ) σ 4 . Then with (28) and (29) in hand, Theorem 1.2 for the case that β ≤ 1, 1 &lt; σ 2 ≤ 1 β and θ 2 ≥ ( 1 -β ) ( σ 2 -1 ) σ 4 follows readily.

4.2.3. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 2 ( u ) = f 2 ( u 0 ) for 0 &lt; u 0 &lt; 1 . Notice that f ′ 2 ( u 0 ) = 0. This corresponds to the case that β &lt; 1, 1 &lt; σ 2 &lt; 1 β , and

$$\frac { ( 1 - \beta ) } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } < \theta ^ { 2 } < \frac { ( 1 - \beta ) } { ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } \sigma ^ { 4 }.$$

We also recall that in this case

$$\colon \\ 0 < u _ { 0 } = \frac { \sqrt { \frac { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 } { 1 - \beta } } \cdot \theta - 1 } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 } < 1$$

and

$$f _ { 2 } ( u _ { 0 } ) = \frac { - 2 \sqrt { ( 1 - \beta ) \, ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) } \theta - \beta + \sigma ^ { 2 } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }.$$

Choose

One can check that x 0 &lt; √ 2 θ since u 0 &gt; 0. Then,

$$x _ { 0 } = \frac { \sqrt { 2 } \theta u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 1 - u _ { 0 } + u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } }, \ \ x _ { t } = x _ { 0 } t.$$

$$\text{check that } & x _ { 0 } < \sqrt { 2 \theta } \sin e \, u _ { 0 } > 0. \, \text{Then}, \\ & \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ & \geq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left ( 1 - e ^ { - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - u _ { 0 } t - s, \sqrt { 2 } \theta t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) } \right ) \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) | \geq 1 \right ) \text{d} s. \\. \quad.$$

We also notice that

$$\frac { \left ( \sqrt { 2 } \theta - x _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } > 1,$$

since

$$\sigma ^ { 2 } < \frac { 1 } { \beta } < 2 - \beta, \quad \text{for} \quad \beta < 1.$$

Then applying (3) again, we have

$$\mu _ { 1 } \nu _ { 2 } \sigma \cdot \nu _ { 3 } \sigma _ { 4 } \cdot \nu _ { 5 } \cdot \nu _ { 6 } \cdot \nu _ { 7 } \cdot \nu _ { 8 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 }\cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdots \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \beta _ { 1 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \cdot \nu _ { 9 } \\ \liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \hat { u } \left ( t - u _ { 0 } t - s, \sqrt { 2 } \theta t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) ^ { 2 } } \right ) \geq \left ( 1 - \frac { \left ( \sqrt { 2 } \theta - x _ { 0 } t \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } t \right ) ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } t \right ),$$

uniform for s ∈ [ 0, 1 ] and

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) | \geq 1 \right ) = \beta u _ { 0 } - \frac { x _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } u _ { 0 } },$$

uniform for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . Then one has ]

$$( 3 0 )$$

$$& \cdot \cdots \quad \cdot \quad \cdot \quad \longrightarrow \quad \vdots \\ [ 0, 1 ]. \text{ Then one has} \\ & \liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \\ & \geq \beta u _ { 0 } - \frac { x _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } u _ { 0 } } + \left ( 1 - \frac { \left ( \sqrt { 2 } \theta - x _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) \\ & = ( \beta - 1 ) u _ { 0 } + 1 - \frac { \theta ^ { 2 } } { \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 \right ) u _ { 0 } + 1 } \\ & = \frac { - 2 \sqrt { \left ( 1 - \beta \right ) \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 \right ) \theta - \beta + \sigma ^ { 2 } } } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }. \\ \text{orem 1.2 for the above case.}$$

This proves Theorem 1.2 for the above case.

## 5. PROOF OF THEOREM 1.3

In this section, we always assume that

$$( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \in \mathcal { C } _ { \amalg } = \left \{ ( \beta, \sigma ^ { 2 } ) \, \colon \sigma ^ { 2 } + \beta > 2 \text{ and } \sigma ^ { 2 } < \frac { \beta } { 2 \beta - 1 } \right \}.$$

Recall ξ = σ 2 -β √ 2 1 ( -σ 2 )( β -1 ) . The arguments are also exactly the same as those in Section 4. One just replace θ by ξθ √ 2 . We give only an outline here.

## 5.1. Upper bound.

Proof. First, by union bound, one has

$$& \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) \\ \leqslant & 2 \max \left ( e ^ { \beta t } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { t } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ), \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \mathbb { P } \left ( \sigma B _ { s } + B _ { t } - B _ { s } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) d s \right ) \\ = \colon & 2 \max \left ( I, \, \mathbb { I } \right ).$$

According to (4), we have

$$\mathbf I \leq O ( 1 ) \cdot \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { t } } \cdot e ^ { \beta t } \cdot e ^ { - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } t ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } t } } = \frac { O ( 1 ) } { \sqrt { t } } \cdot e ^ { \left ( \beta - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } } \right ) t }$$

and

$$\text{II} \leq \alpha \int _ { 0 } ^ { t } e ^ { \beta s + ( t - s ) } \cdot \frac { 1 } { \sqrt { 2 \pi \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } s + t - s \right ) } } \cdot e ^ { - \frac { \zeta ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } t ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( \sigma ^ { 2 } s + t - s ) } } \text{d} s.$$

For II, set

$$f _ { 3 } ( u ) = ( \beta - 1 ) u + 1 - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) \, u + 1 ) }, \quad u \in ( 0, 1 ).$$

Then

$$f _ { 3 } ^ { \prime } ( u ) = \beta - 1 + \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 \right ) \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left [ \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 \right ) u + 1 \right ] ^ { 2 } }.$$

and

$$f _ { 3 } ( u _ { 0 } ) = \frac { \sqrt { 2 } ( 1 - \beta ) - \theta ^ { 2 } \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - \beta \right ) ^ { 2 } - 1 } { \sqrt { 2 } \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 \right ) } + 1.$$

↦

Since ( β σ , 2 ) ∈ C III , then β &gt; 1, σ 2 &lt; 1 and hence u → ′ f 3 ( u ) is decreasing. We have three cases. If θ 2 ≥ 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 1 ξ 2 , then f ′ 3 ( 0 ) ≤ 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 3 ( u ) = f 3 ( 0 ) and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \sup _ { \frac { 1 } { t } } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \xi \theta t \right ) \leq f _ { 3 } ( 0 ) = 1 - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 }.$$

If θ 2 ≤ 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 σ 4 ξ 2 , then f ′ 3 ( 1 ) ≥ 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 3 ( u ) = f 3 ( 1 ) and hence

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \sup _ { t } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \xi \theta t \right ) \leq f _ { 3 } ( 1 ) = \beta - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

If 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 σ 4 ξ 2 &lt; θ 2 &lt; 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 1 ξ 2 , then f ′ 3 ( 0 ) &gt; 0 and f ′ 3 ( 1 ) &lt; 0. Thus max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 3 ( u ) = f 3 ( u 0 ) with f ′ 3 ( u 0 ) = 0 yields that

$$u _ { 0 } = \frac { \xi \theta \sqrt { \frac { 1 - \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( \beta - 1 ) } } - 1 } { \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 }$$

and

$$\text{and} \\ \text{(35)} \quad \lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geq \xi \theta t \right ) \leq f _ { 3 } ( u _ { 0 } ) = \frac { \sqrt { 2 } ( 1 - \beta ) - \theta ^ { 2 } \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - \beta \right ) ^ { 2 } - 1 } { \sqrt { 2 } \left ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 \right ) } + 1.$$

## 5.2. Lower bound for Theorem 1.3. Notice that

$$\mathbb { P } \left ( M _ { t } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) \geqslant \max \left \{ \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ), \, \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) \right \}.$$

First, from (3), we have

$$\underset { t \to \infty } { \vdots } \, \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu \nu } \, \underset { t } { \left \{ \sum \right \} } \, \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 1 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) & = \lim _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 } ; \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { t } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) \\ & = \beta - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

$$= \beta - \frac { 5 \, \nu } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } }.$$

By similar reasoning as (17) and (18), we have

$$\mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right )$$

$$\geq \int _ { I _ { t } } 1 - \mathbb { E } \left [ \sup _ { \substack { u \in \mathcal { N } _ { s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) } } \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \xi \theta t - x _ { t } \right ) \right \} \right ] \mathrm d s,$$

where I t ⊂ [ 0, t ] is an interval of length 1, xt ∈ R is a deterministic function of t . Both I t and xt will be determined later from case to case. Recall from (31) that

$$f _ { 3 } ( u ) = ( \beta - 1 ) u + 1 - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 ( ( \sigma ^ { 2 } - 1 ) \, u + 1 ) }, \ \ u \in ( 0, 1 ).$$

5.2.1. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 3 ( u ) = f 3 ( 0 ) . This corresponds to the cases that θ 2 ≥ 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 1 ξ 2 . Choose

$$I _ { t } = [ \varepsilon t, \varepsilon t + 1 ], \ \ x _ { t } = - \varepsilon t,$$

for ε &gt; 0 small enough. Then

$$& \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) \\ & \geq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left ( 1 - \exp \left \{ - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - \varepsilon t - s, \xi \theta t + \varepsilon t \right ) \right \} \right ) \mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { \varepsilon t + s } \geq - \varepsilon t \right ) \mathrm d s. \\. &. & \quad.$$

Then applying (3), we have

$$\lim _ { \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 } \liminf _ { t \rightarrow \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \bar { u } \left ( t - s, \xi \theta t + \varepsilon t \right ) \geq 1 - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 }.$$

We further notice that

$$\mathbb { P } _ { \sigma ^ { 2 }, \beta } \left ( \bar { M } _ { \varepsilon t + s } \geq - \varepsilon t \right ) \rightarrow 1, \ \text{ as } t \rightarrow \infty.$$

Then applying Jensen's inequality and Fatou's lemma, one has

$$\liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { \mu } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \sqrt { 2 } \theta t \right ) \geq 1 - \frac { \xi ^ { 2 } \theta ^ { 2 } } { 2 }.$$

This proves Theorem 1.3 for the cases θ 2 ≥ 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 1 ξ 2 .

□

5.2.2. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 3 ( u ) = f 3 ( 1 ) . This case corresponds to the case θ 2 ≤ 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 σ 4 ξ 2 . Similarly as before, (36) and (37) yield Theorem 1.3 for this case.

5.2.3. The case of max0 ≤ ≤ u 1 f 3 ( u ) = f 3 ( u 0 ) for 0 &lt; u 0 &lt; 1 . Notice that f ′ 3 ( u 0 ) = 0. This corresponds to the case 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 σ 4 ξ 2 &lt; θ 2 &lt; 2 ( β -1 ) 1 -σ 2 1 ξ 2 . Choose

$$x _ { 0 } = \frac { \xi \theta u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } } { 1 - u _ { 0 } + u _ { 0 } \sigma ^ { 2 } }, \ \ x _ { t } = x _ { 0 } t.$$

Obviously x 0 &lt; ξθ , since u 0 &gt; 0. Then

$$\kappa _ { 1 } \cdot \kappa _ { 2 } \cdot \kappa _ { 3 } \cdot & \quad \begin{array} { c } \kappa \\ \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) \\ \quad \geq \int _ { 0 } ^ { 1 } \left ( 1 - e ^ { - \alpha \bar { u } \left ( t - u _ { 0 } t - s, \xi \theta t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) } \right ) \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) | \geq 1 \right ) \mathrm d s. \end{array}$$

We also notice that

$$\frac { \left ( \xi \theta - x _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } > 1.$$

Then applying (3) again, we have

$$\liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \bar { u } \left ( t - u _ { 0 } t - s, \xi \theta t - x _ { 0 } t \right ) \geq \left ( 1 - \frac { \left ( \xi \theta - x _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } { 2 \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ) ^ { 2 } } \right ) \left ( 1 - u _ { 0 } \right ),$$

uniform for s ∈ [ 0, 1 ] and

$$\lim _ { t \to \infty } \mathbb { P } \left ( | \mathcal { N } _ { u _ { 0 } t + s } ^ { 1 } ( x _ { t } ) | \geq 1 \right ) = \beta u _ { 0 } - \frac { x _ { 0 } ^ { 2 } } { 2 \sigma ^ { 2 } u _ { 0 } },$$

uniform for s ∈ [ 0, 1 . Then one has ]

$$\liminf _ { t \to \infty } \frac { 1 } { t } \ln \mathbb { P } \left ( \exists \, u \in \mathcal { N } _ { t } ^ { 2 } \, \colon X _ { t } ^ { u } \geqslant \xi \theta t \right ) = f _ { 3 } ( u _ { 0 } ).$$

This proves Theorem 1.3 for the above case. We are done.

Acknowledgement. We are deeply indebted to Haojun Zhao who pointed out an error in the proof of Theorem 1.1 in the previous version.

## REFERENCES

- [1] E. A¨ ıd´kon, J. Berestycki, E. Brunet, and Z. Shi. e Branching Brownian motion seen from its tip. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields , 157(1-2):405-451, 2013.
- [2] L.-P. Arguin, A. Bovier, and N. Kistler. Genealogy of extremal particles of branching Brownian motion. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 64(12):1647-1676, 2011.
- [3] L.-P. Arguin, A. Bovier, and N. Kistler. The extremal process of branching Brownian motion. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields , 157(3-4):535-574, 2013.
- [4] M. A. Belloum. The extremal process of a cascading family of branching Brownian motion. arXiv:2202.01584 , 2022.
- [5] M.A.Belloum and B. Mallein. Anomalous spreading in reducible multitype branching brownian motion. Electronic Journal of Probability , 26(none):1 - 39, 2021.
- [6] J. Berestycki, E. Brunet, A. Cortines, and B. Mallein. ´ A simple backward construction of branching Brownian motion with large displacement and applications. Annales de l'Institut Henri Poincar´ e, Probabilites et Statistiques , 58(4):2094-2113, 2022.
- [7] J. D. Biggins. Spreading speeds in reducible multitype branching random walk. The Annals of Applied Probability , 22(5):1778 - 1821, 2012.
- [8] M. Biskup and O. Louidor. Full extremal process, cluster law and freezing for the twodimensional discrete Gaussian free field. Advances in Mathematics , 330:589-687, 2016.

- [9] M. Bramson, J. Ding, and O. Zeitouni. Convergence in law of the maximum of the twodimensional discrete Gaussian free field. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics , 69(1):62-123, 2016.
- [10] M. D. Bramson. Convergence of solutions of the Kolmogorov equation to travelling waves , volume 285. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society (AMS), 1983.
- [11] B. Chauvin and A. Rouault. KPP equation and supercritical branching Brownian motion in the subcritical speed area. Application to spatial trees. Probab. Theory Relat. Fields , 80(2):299314, 1988.
- [12] A. Dembo, Y. Peres, J. Rosen, and O. Zeitouni. Cover times for brownian motion and random walks in two dimensions. Annals of Mathematics , 160(2):433-464, 2001.
- [13] C. Glenz, N. Kistler, and M. A. Schmidt. High points of branching Brownian motion and McKean's martingale in the Bovier-Hartung extremal process. Electron. Commun. Probab. , 23:Paper No. 86, 12, 2018.
- [14] M. Holzer. Anomalous spreading in a system of coupled Fisher-KPP equations. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 270:1-10, 2014.
- [15] M. Holzer. A proof of anomalous invasion speeds in a system of coupled Fisher-KPP equations. Discrete and Continuous Dynamical Systems , 36(4):2069-2084, 2015.
- [16] S. P. Lalley and T. Sellke. A conditional limit theorem for the frontier of a branching Brownian motion. Ann. Probab. , 15(3):1052-1061, 1987.
- [17] H. Ma and Y.-X. Ren. Double jump in the maximum of two-type reducible branching Brownian motion, 2023.
- [18] H. P. McKean. Application of Brownian motion to the equation of Kolmogorov-PetrovskiiPiskunov. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. , 28:323-331, 1975.

HUI HE, LABORATORY OF MATHEMATICS AND COMPLEX SYSTEMS, SCHOOL OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES, BEIJING NORMAL UNIVERSITY, P.R. CHINA

Email address : hehui@bnu.edu.cn
Hui He
Large deviations for the maximum of a reducible two-type branching Brownian motion
We consider a two-type reducible branching Brownian motion, defined as a
particle system on the real line in which particles of two types move according
to independent Brownian motions and create offspring at a constant rate.
Particles of type $1$ can give birth to particles of types $1$ and $2$, but
particles of type $2$ only give birth to descendants of type $2$. Under some
specific conditions, Belloum and Mallein in \cite{BeMa21} showed that the
maximum position $M_t$ of all particles alive at time $t$, suitably centered by
a deterministic function $m_t$, converge weakly. In this work, we are
interested in the decay rate of the following upper large deviation
probability, as $t\rightarrow\infty$, \[ {\mathbb P}(M_t\geq \theta m_t),\quad
\theta>1. \] We shall show that the decay rate function exhibits phase
transitions depending on certain relations between $\theta$, the variance of
the underlying Brownian motion and the branching rate.