### DOI 10.1007/s00440-014-0606-4

**The continuum disordered pinning model**

**Francesco Caravenna** **· Rongfeng Sun ·** **Nikos Zygouras**

### Received: 19 June 2014 / Revised: 30 November 2014 / Published online: 17 December 2014

### © The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

**Abstract Any renewal processes on** N 0 with a polynomial tail, with exponent *α ∈ (0, 1), has a non-trivial scaling limit, known as the α-stable regenerative set.*

### In this paper we consider Gibbs transformations of such renewal processes in an i.i.d.

### random environment, called disordered pinning models. We show that for *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1* *these models have a universal scaling limit, which we call the continuum disordered* *pinning model (CDPM). This is a random closed subset of* R in a white noise random environment, with subtle features:

*• Any fixed a.s. property of the α-stable regenerative set (e.g., its Hausdorff dimen-* sion) is also an a.s. property of the CDPM, for almost every realization of the environment.

*• Nonetheless, the law of the CDPM is singular with respect to the law of the α-stable* regenerative set, for almost every realization of the environment.

### The existence of a disordered continuum model, such as the CDPM, is a manifestation *of disorder relevance for pinning models with* *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1* .

### F. Caravenna ( B ^{)}

### Dipartimento di Matematica e Applicazioni, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, via Cozzi 55, 20125 Milano, Italy

### e-mail: [email protected] R. Sun

### Department of Mathematics, National University of Singapore, 10 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119076, Singapore

### e-mail: [email protected] N. Zygouras

### Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

### e-mail: [email protected]

**Keywords** Scaling limit · Disorder relevance · Weak disorder · Pinning model · Fell–Matheron topology · Hausdorff metric · Random polymer · Wiener Chaos expansion

**Mathematics Subject Classification** Primary 82B44; Secondary 82D60 · 60K35

**1 Introduction**

### We consider disordered pinning models, which are defined via a Gibbs change of measure of a renewal process, depending on an external i.i.d. random environment.

### First introduced in the physics and biology literature, these models have attracted much attention due to their rich structure, which is amenable to a rigorous investigation; see, e.g., the monographs of Giacomin [19,20] and den Hollander [13].

*In this paper we define a continuum disordered pinning model (CDPM), inspired* by recent work of Alberts et al. [4] on the directed polymer in random environment.

### The interest for such a continuum model is manifold:

*• It is a universal object, arising as the scaling limit of discrete disordered pinning* models in a suitable continuum and weak disorder limit, Theorem 1.3.

### • It provides a tool to capture the emerging effect of disorder in pinning models, when disorder is relevant, Sect. 1.4 for a more detailed discussion.

*• It can be interpreted as an α-stable regenerative set in a white noise random envi-* ronment, displaying subtle properties, Theorems 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6.

### Throughout the paper, we use the conventions *N := {1, 2, . . .}, N* 0 := {0} ∪ N, and *write a* *n* *∼ b* *n* to mean lim *n* →∞ *a* *n* */b* *n* = 1.

### 1.1 Renewal processes and regenerative sets

### Let *τ := (τ* *n* *)* *n* ≥0 *be a renewal process on* N 0 , that is *τ* 0 = 0 and the increments *(τ* *n* *−τ* *n* −1 *)* *n* ∈N are i.i.d. *N-valued random variables (so that 0 = τ* 0 *< τ* 1 *< τ* 2 *< · · · ).*

### Probability and expectation for *τ will be denoted respectively by P and E. We assume* that *τ is non-terminating, i.e., P(τ* 1 *< ∞) = 1, and*

*K* *(n) := P(τ* 1 *= n) =* *L(n)*

*n* ^{1} ^{+α} *,* *as n* *→ ∞,* (1.1)

^{+α}

### where *α ∈ (0, 1) and L(·) is a slowly varying function [8]. We assume for simplicity* *that K* *(n) > 0 for every n ∈ N (periodicity complicates notation, but can be easily* incorporated).

### Let us denote by *C the space of all closed subsets of R. There is a natural topology*

### on *C, called the Fell–Matheron topology [15,24,25], which turns* *C into a compact*

*Polish space, i.e. a compact separable topological space which admits a complete*

*metric. This can be taken as a version of the Hausdorff distance (see Appendix* A for

### more details).

### Identifying the renewal process *τ = {τ* *n* } *n* ≥0 with its range, we may view *τ as a* random subset of N 0 , i.e. as a *C-value random variable (hence we write {n ∈ τ} :=*

*k* ≥0 *{τ* *k* *= n}). This viewpoint is very fruitful, because as N → ∞ the rescaled set* *τ*

*N* =

### *τ* *n*

*N*

*n* ≥0

### (1.2)

### converges in distribution on **C to a universal random closed set τ of [0, ∞), called the** *α-stable regenerative set ([16], [19, Thm. A.8]). This coincides with the closure of the* range of the *α-stable subordinator or, equivalently, with the zero level set of a Bessel* process of dimension *δ = 2(1 − α) (see Appendix* A), and we denote its law by P ^{α} . *Remark 1.1 Random sets have been studied extensively [24,25]. Here we focus on the* special case of random closed subsets of R. The theory developed in [16] for regen- *erative sets cannot be applied in our context, because we modify renewal processes* through inhomogeneous perturbations and conditioning (see (1.4)–(1.9) below). For this reason, in Appendix A we review and develop a general framework to study con- vergence of random closed sets of R, based on a natural notion of finite-dimensional distributions.

**C to a universal random closed set τ of [0, ∞), called the**

^{α}

### 1.2 Disordered pinning models

### Let *ω := (ω* *n* *)* *n* ∈N be i.i.d. random variables (independent of the renewal process *τ), which represent the disorder. Probability and expectation for ω will be denoted* respectively by P and E. We assume that

*E[ω* *n* *] = 0,* *Var(ω* *n* *) = 1,* *∃t* 0 *> 0 : (t) := log E[e* ^{t} ^{ω}

^{t}

^{ω}

^{n}*] < ∞ for |t| ≤ t* 0 *.* (1.3) *The disordered pinning model is a random probability law P* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} on subsets of *{0, . . . , N}, indexed by realizations ω of the disorder, the system size N ∈ N, the* disorder strength *β > 0 and bias h ∈ R, defined by the following Gibbs change of* measure of the renewal process *τ:*

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

### P ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} *(τ ∩ [0, N])*

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

### P(τ ∩ [0, N]) := 1

*Z* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} *e* ^{}

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

^{n}^{N}^{=1}

^{(βω}

^{(βω}

^{n}^{−(β)+h)1}

^{−(β)+h)1}

^{{n∈τ}}*,* (1.4) where the normalizing constant

*Z* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} := E

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

*e* ^{}

^{n}^{N}^{=1}

^{(βω}

^{(βω}

^{n}^{−(β)+h)1}

^{−(β)+h)1}

^{{n∈τ}}### (1.5)

*is called the partition function. In words, we perturb the law of the renewal process* *τ*

### in the interval *[0, N], by giving rewards/penalties (βω* *n* *− (β) + h) to each visited*

*site n* *∈ τ. (The presence of the factor (β) in (1.4)–(1.5), which just corresponds to*

*a translation of h, allows to have normalized weights* *E[e* ^{βω}

^{βω}

^{n}^{−(β)} *] = 1 for h = 0).*

^{−(β)}

### The properties of the model P ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} *, especially in the limit N* → ∞, have been stud- ied in depth in the recent mathematical literature (see e.g. [13,19,20] for an overview).

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

### In this paper we focus on the problem of defining a continuum analogue of P ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} . Since under the “free law” P the rescaled renewal process *τ/N converges in dis-* tribution to the **α-stable regenerative set τ, it is natural to ask what happens under the**

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

**α-stable regenerative set τ, it is natural to ask what happens under the**

### “interacting law” P ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} . Heuristically, in the scaling limit the i.i.d. random variables *(ω* *n* *)* *n* ∈N should be replaced by a one-dimensional white noise *(dW* *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,∞)* , where *W* *= (W* *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,∞)* denotes a standard Brownian motion (independent of **τ). Looking** at (1.4), a natural candidate for the scaling limit of *τ/N under P* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} would be the **random measure P** ^{α;W} _{T} _{,β,h} on *C defined by*

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

**τ). Looking**

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

^{α;W}

_{T}

_{,β,h}

**dP** ^{α;W} _{T} _{,β,h}

^{α;W}

_{T}

_{,β,h}

**dP** ^{α} **(τ ∩ [0, T ]) :=** 1 **Z** ^{α;W} _{T} _{,β,h} *e*

^{α}

**(τ ∩ [0, T ]) :=**

**Z**

^{α;W}

_{T}

_{,β,h}

*T*0

### 1

**{t∈τ}**### *βdW*

*t*

### + *h* −

^{1}

_{2}

*β*

^{2}

*dt*

*,* (1.6)

**where the continuum partition function Z** ^{α;W} _{T} _{,β,h} would be defined in analogy to (1.5).

**where the continuum partition function Z**

^{α;W}

_{T}

_{,β,h}

### The problem is that a.e. realization of the **α-stable regenerative set τ has zero Lebesgue** measure, hence the integral in (1.6) vanishes, yielding the “trivial” definition P ^{α;W} _{T} _{,β,h} = **P** ^{α} .

**α-stable regenerative set τ has zero Lebesgue**

^{α;W}

_{T}

_{,β,h}

^{α}

### These difficulties turn out to be substantial and not just technical: as we shall see, a non-trivial scaling limit of P ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} does exist, but, for *α ∈* _{1}

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

### 2 *, 1*

*, it is not absolutely* **continuous with respect to the law P** ^{α} [hence no formula like (1.6) can hold]. Note that an analogous phenomenon happens for the directed polymer in random environment [4].

^{α}

### 1.3 Main results

### We need to formulate an additional assumption on the renewal processes that we consider. Introducing the renewal function

*u(n) := P(n ∈ τ) =*
∞ *k* =0

### P(τ *k* *= n),*

### assumption (1.1) yields u(n +)/u(n) → 1 as n → ∞, provided = o(n) (see (2.10) below). We ask that the rate of this convergence is at least a power-law of ^{} _{n} :

^{}

_{n}

*∃C, n* 0 *∈(0, ∞), ε, δ ∈(0, 1] :*

### *u(n + )* *u* *(n)* −1

* ≤ C* *n*

### _{δ}

_{δ}

*∀n ≥ n* 0 *, 0 ≤ ≤ εn.*

### (1.7) *Remark 1.2 As we discuss in Appendix* B, condition (1.7) is a very mild smoothness requirement, that can be verified in most situations. E.g., it was shown by Alexander [2]

### that for any *α > 0 and slowly varying L(·), there exists a Markov chain X on N* 0 with

*±1 steps, called Bessel-like random walk, whose return time to 0, denoted by T , is*

### such that

*K* *(n) := P(T = 2n) =* *L(n)*

*n* ^{1} ^{+α} *as n* *→ ∞,* with *L(n) ∼ L(n).* (1.8) We prove in Appendix B that any such walk always satisfies (1.7).

^{+α}

### Recall that *C denotes the compact Polish space of closed subsets of R. We denote* by *M* 1 *(C) the space of Borel probability measures on C, which is itself a compact* Polish space, equipped with the topology of weak convergence. We will work with a *conditioned version of the disordered pinning model (1.4), defined by*

### P ^{ω,c} _{N} _{,β,h} *( · ) := P* ^{ω} *N* *,β,h* *( · |N ∈ τ).* (1.9) *(In order to lighten notation, when N* */∈ N we agree that P* ^{ω,c} _{N} _{,β,h} := P ^{ω,c} _{N
,β,h} ).

^{ω,c}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

^{ω}

^{ω,c}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

^{ω,c}

_{N ,β,h}

### Recalling (1.2), let us introduce the notation P ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(d(τ/N)) := law of the rescaled set* *τ*

*N* *∩ [0, T ] under P* ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*.* (1.10) For a fixed realization of the disorder *ω, P* ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(d(τ/N)) is a probability law on* *C, i.e. an element of M* 1 *(C). Since ω is chosen randomly, the law P* ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(d(τ/N))* *is a random element of* *M* 1 *(C), i.e. a M* 1 *(C)-valued random variable.*

### Our first main result is the convergence in distribution of this random variable, provided *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1*

### and the coupling constants *β = β* *N* *and h* *= h* *N* are rescaled appropriately:

*β* *N* *:= ˆβ* *L* *(N)*

*N* ^{α−}

^{α−}

^{1}

^{2}

*,* *h* *N* *:= ˆh* *L* *(N)*

*N* ^{α} *,* *for N* *∈ N, ˆβ > 0, ˆh ∈ R.* (1.11) **Theorem 1.3 (Existence and universality of the CDPM) Fix** *α ∈ (* ^{1} _{2} *, 1), T > 0,* *ˆβ > 0, ˆh ∈ R. There exists a M* 1 **(C)-valued random variable P** ^{α;W,c} _{T} _{, ˆβ, ˆh} *, called the* *(conditioned) continuum disordered pinning model (CDPM), which is a function of* *the parameters* *(α, T, ˆβ, ˆh) and of a standard Brownian motion W = (W* *t* *)* *t* ≥0 *, with* *the following property:*

^{α}

**Theorem 1.3 (Existence and universality of the CDPM) Fix**

**(C)-valued random variable P**

^{α;W,c}

_{T}

_{, ˆβ, ˆh}

*• for any renewal process τ satisfying (1.1) and (1.7), and* *β* *N* *, h* *N* *defined as in* (1.11);

*• for any i.i.d. sequence ω satisfying (* 1.3);

*the law P* ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(d(τ/N)) of the rescaled pinning model (1.10), viewed as a* *M* 1 *(C)-* **valued random variable, converges in distribution to P** ^{α;W,c}

**valued random variable, converges in distribution to P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *as N* *→ ∞.*

### We refer to Sect. 1.4 for a discussion on the universality of the CDPM. We stress that the restriction *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1*

### is substantial and not technical, being linked with the *issue of disorder relevance, as we explain in Sect.* 1.4 (see also [10]).

### Let us give a quick explanation of the choice of scalings (1.11). This is the canonical *scaling under which the partition function Z* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β}

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

### in (1.5) has a nontrivial continuum

### limit. To see this, write

*Z* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} = E

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

### _{N}

_{N}

*n* =1

### 1 *+ ε* *n* ^{β,h} 1 *n* *∈τ*

^{β,h}

### = 1 +
*N* *k* =1

### 1 *≤n*

1*<···<n*

*k*

*≤N*

*ε* _{n} ^{β,h}

_{n}

^{β,h}

_{1}

*· · · ε* ^{β,h} _{n}

^{β,h}

_{n}

_{k}### P(n 1 *∈ τ, ..., n* *k* *∈ τ),*

### where *ε* ^{β,h} *n* *:= e* ^{βω}

^{β,h}

^{βω}

^{n}^{−(β)+h} *− 1. By Taylor expansion, as β, h tend to zero, one has* the asymptotic behavior *E[ε* *n* ^{β,h} *] ≈ h and Var(ε* *n* ^{β,h} *) ≈ β* ^{2} . Using this fact, we see *that the asymptotic mean and variance behavior of the first term (k* = 1) in the above series is

^{−(β)+h}

^{β,h}

^{β,h}

### E

### _{N}

_{N}

*n* =1

*ε* ^{β,h} _{n} P(n ∈ τ)

^{β,h}

_{n}

*≈ h*
*N* *n* =1

### P(n ∈ τ) ≈ h *N* ^{α} *L* *(N)* *,* Var

^{α}

### _{N}

_{N}

*n* =1

*ε* ^{β,h} *n* P *(n ∈ τ)*

^{β,h}

*≈ β* ^{2}
*N* *n* =1

### P *(n ∈ τ)* ^{2} *≈ β* ^{2} *N* ^{2} ^{α−1} *L* *(N)* ^{2} *,*

^{α−1}

### because P(n ∈ τ) ≈ n ^{α−1} */L(n), by (1.1) (see (2.10) below). Therefore, for these* *quantities to have a non-trivial limit as N tends to infinity, we are forced to scale* *β* *N*

^{α−1}

*and h* *N* as in (1.11). Remarkably, this is also the correct scaling for higher order terms *in the expansion for Z* ^{ω} _{N} _{,β,h} , as well as for the measure P ^{ω} _{N} _{,β}

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

^{ω}

_{N}

_{,β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}### to converge to a non-trivial limit.

### We now describe the continuum measure. For a fixed realization of the Brownian *motion W* *= (W* *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,∞)* **, which represents the “continuum disorder”, we call P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh*

*the quenched law of the CDPM, while* E

**P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh*

### *( · ) :=*

### **P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *( · ) P(dW)* (1.12)

*will be called the averaged law of the CDPM. We also introduce, for T* *> 0, the law* **P** ^{α;c} _{T} of the **α-stable regenerative set τ restricted on [0, T ] and conditioned to visit T :** **P** ^{α;c} _{T} **( · ) := P** ^{α} **(τ ∩ [0, T ] ∈ · | T ∈ τ),** (1.13) *which will be called the reference law. (Relation (1.13) is defined through regular* conditional distributions.) Note that both E

^{α;c}

_{T}

**α-stable regenerative set τ restricted on [0, T ] and conditioned to visit T :**

^{α;c}

_{T}

**( · ) := P**

^{α}

**(τ ∩ [0, T ] ∈ · | T ∈ τ),**

**P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh*

### **and P** ^{α;c} _{T} are probability laws on **C, while P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;c}

_{T}

**C, while P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *is a random probability law on* *C.*

**Intuitively, the quenched law P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* could be conceived as a “Gibbs transformation”

**of the reference law P** ^{α;c} _{T} *, where each visited site t* **∈ τ ∩ [0, T ] of the α-stable**

^{α;c}

_{T}

**∈ τ ∩ [0, T ] of the α-stable**

### regenerative set is given a reward/penalty ˆ *β* ^{dW} _{dt}

^{dW}

_{dt}

^{t}*+ ˆh, like in the discrete case. This*

### heuristic interpretation should be taken with care, however, as the following results

### show.

**Theorem 1.4 (Absolute continuity of the averaged CDPM) For all** *α ∈* _{1}

**Theorem 1.4 (Absolute continuity of the averaged CDPM) For all**

### 2 *, 1* *, T* *> 0,* *ˆβ > 0, ˆh ∈ R, the averaged law E*

**P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh*

### *of the CDPM is absolutely continuous with* **respect to the reference law P** ^{α;c} _{T} *. It follows that any typical property of the reference* **law P** ^{α;c} _{T} **is also a typical property of the quenched law P** ^{α;W,c}

**respect to the reference law P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

**law P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

**is also a typical property of the quenched law P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *, for a.e. realization of* *W :*

**∀A ⊆ C such that P** ^{α;c} _{T} *(A) = 1 :* **P** ^{α;W,c}

**∀A ⊆ C such that P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *(A) = 1 for P-a.e. W.* (1.14) **In particular, for a.e. realization of W , the quenched law P** ^{α;W,c}

**In particular, for a.e. realization of W , the quenched law P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *of the CDPM is* *supported on closed subsets of* *[0, T ] with Hausdorff dimension α.*

### It is tempting to deduce from (1.14) the absolute continuity of the quenched law **P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* **with respect to the reference law P** ^{α;c} _{T} *, for a.e. realization of W , but this is false.*

^{α;c}

_{T}

**Theorem 1.5 (Singularity of the quenched CDPM) For all** *α ∈* _{1}

**Theorem 1.5 (Singularity of the quenched CDPM) For all**

### 2 *, 1*

*, T* *> 0, ˆβ > 0,* **ˆh ∈ R and for a.e. realization of W, the quenched law P** ^{α;W,c} _{T} _{, ˆβ, ˆh} *of the CDPM is singular* **with respect to the reference law P** ^{α;c} _{T} *:*

**ˆh ∈ R and for a.e. realization of W, the quenched law P**

^{α;W,c}

_{T}

_{, ˆβ, ˆh}

**with respect to the reference law P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

*for* **P-a.e. W, ∃A ⊆ C such that P** ^{α;c} _{T} **(A) = 1 and P** ^{α;W,c}

**P-a.e. W, ∃A ⊆ C such that P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

**(A) = 1 and P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *(A) = 0.* (1.15) The seeming contradiction between (1.14) and (1.15) is resolved noting that in (1.14) one cannot exchange “ *∀A ⊆ C” and “for P-a.e. W”, because there are uncount-* *ably many A* *⊆ C (and, of course, the set A appearing in (* 1.15) depends on the *realization of W ).*

### We conclude our main results with an explicit characterization of the CDPM. As we discuss in Appendix A, each closed subset C ⊆ R can be identified with two non-decreasing and right-continuous functions g *t* *(C) and d* *t* *(C), defined for t ∈ R by* g _{t} *(C) := sup{x : x ∈ C ∩ [−∞, t]},* d _{t} *(C) := inf{x : x ∈ C ∩ (t, ∞]}. (1.16)* *As a consequence, the law of a random closed subset X* ⊆ R is uniquely deter- mined by the finite dimensional distributions of the random functions *(g* *t* *(X))* *t* ∈R and *(d* *t* *(X))* *t* ∈R , i.e. by the probability laws on R ^{2k} *given, for k* *∈ N and −∞ < t* 1 *< t* 2 *<*

_{t}

_{t}

^{2k}

*. . . < t* *k* *< ∞, by* P

### g _{t}

_{t}

_{1}

*(X) ∈ dx* 1 *, d* *t*

_{1}

*(X) ∈ dy* 1 *, . . . , g* *t*

_{k}*(X) ∈ dx* *k* *, d* *t*

_{k}*(X) ∈ dy* *k*

### *.* (1.17)

*As a further simplification, it is enough to focus on the event that X* *∩[t* *i* *, t* *i* +1 ] = ∅ for *all i* *= 1, . . . , k, that is, one can restrict (x* 1 *, y* 1 *, . . . , x* *k* *, y* *k* *) in (1.17) on the following* set:

*R* ^{(k)} *t*

0^{(k)}

*,...,t*

*k*+1

### :=

*(x* 1 *, y* 1 *, . . . , x* *k* *, y* *k* *) : x* *i* *∈ [t* *i* −1 *, t* *i* *], y* *i* *∈ [t* *i* *, t* *i* +1 *] for i = 1, . . . , k,* *such that y* *i* *≤ x* *i* +1 *for i* *= 1, . . . , k − 1*

*,* (1.18)

*with t* 0 *= −∞ and t* *k* +1 := +∞. The measures (1.17) restricted on the set (1.18) will *be called restricted finite-dimensional distributions (f.d.d.) of the random set X (see*

### §A.3).

### We can characterize the CDPM by specifying its restricted f.d.d.. We need two ingredients:

### (1) The restricted f.d.d. of the *α-stable regenerative set conditioned to visit T , i.e. of the* **reference law P** ^{α;c} _{T} in (1.13): by Proposition A.8, these are absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure on R ^{2k} , with the following density (with *y* 0 := 0):

^{α;c}

_{T}

^{2k}

### f

^{α;c}_{T}_{;t}1*,...,tk*

*(x*

1*, y*

1*, . . . , x*

*k*

*, y*

*k*

*) =*

*k*

*i*=1

*C*

_{α}*(x*

*i*

*− y*

*i−1*

*)*

^{1−α}

*(y*

*i*

*− x*

*i*

*)*

^{1+α}

### *T*

^{1−α}

*(T − y*

*k*

*)*

^{1−α}

*,*

### (1.19) *with C*

_{α}### := *α sin(πα)*

*π* *,* (1.20)

### where we restrict *(x* 1 *, y* 1 *, . . . , x* *k* *, y* *k* *) on the set (1.18), with t* 0 *= 0 and t* *k* +1 *:= T .* *(2) A family of continuum partition functions for our model:*

### **Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* *.*

### These were constructed in [10] as the limit, in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions, of the following discrete family (under an appropriate rescaling):

*Z* _{β,h} ^{ω,c} *(a, b) := E*

_{β,h}

^{ω,c}

*e* ^{}

^{b−1}^{n}^{=a+1}^{(βω}

^{(βω}

^{n}^{−(β)+h)1}

^{−(β)+h)1}

^{{n∈τ}}### *a ∈ τ, b ∈ τ*

*,* 0 *≤ a ≤ b.*

### (1.21) In Sect. 2 we upgrade the f.d.d. convergence to the process level, deducing impor- tant a.s. properties, such as strict positivity and continuity (Theorems 2.1 and 2.4).

### We can finally characterize the restricted f.d.d. of the CDPM as follows.

**Theorem 1.6 (F.d.d. of the CDPM) Fix** *α ∈* _{1}

**Theorem 1.6 (F.d.d. of the CDPM) Fix**

### 2 *, 1*

*, T* *> 0, ˆβ > 0, ˆh ∈ R and* *let*

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* *be an a.s. continuous version of the continuum partition* **functions. For a.e. realization of W , the quenched law P** ^{α;W,c}

**functions. For a.e. realization of W , the quenched law P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *of the CDPM (Theo-* *rem* 1.3) can be defined as the unique probability law on *C which satisfies the following* *properties:*

**(i) P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *is supported on closed subsets* **τ ⊆ [0, T ] with {0, T } ⊆ τ.**

**τ ⊆ [0, T ] with {0, T } ⊆ τ.**

*(ii) For all k* *∈ N and 0 =: t* 0 *< t* 1 *< · · · < t* *k* *< t* *k* +1 *:= T , and for* *(x* 1 *, y* 1 *, . . . , x* *k* *, y* *k* *) restricted on the set R* ^{(k)} *t*

0^{(k)}

*,...,t*

*k*+1

*in (1.18), the f.d.d. of P* ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh*

*have densities given by* **P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh*

### g _{t}

_{t}

_{1}

**(τ) ∈ dx** 1 *, d* *t*

1**(τ) ∈ dx**

**(τ) ∈ dy** 1 *, . . . , g* *t*

**(τ) ∈ dy**

*k*

**(τ) ∈ dx** *k* *, d* *t*

**(τ) ∈ dx**

*k*

**(τ) ∈ dy** *k*

**(τ) ∈ dy**

*dx* 1 *dy* 1 *· · · dx* *k* *dy* *k*

### =

### ⎛

### ⎝

### _{k}

_{k}

*i* =0 **Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(y* *i* *, x* *i* +1 *)* **Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(0, T )*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### ⎞

### ⎠ f ^{α;c} _{T} _{;t}

^{α;c}

_{T}

_{;t}

1

*,...,t*

*k*

*(x* 1 *, y* 1 *, . . . , x* *k* *, y* *k* *),* (1.22)

*where we set y* 0 *:= 0 and x* *k* +1 *:= T , and where f* ^{α;c} _{T} _{;t}

^{α;c}

_{T}

_{;t}

_{1}

_{,...,t}

_{,...,t}

_{k}*(·) is defined in (1.19).*

### 1.4 Discussion and perspectives

### We conclude the introduction with some observations on the results stated so far, putting them in the context of the existing literature, stating some conjectures and outlining further directions of research.

*1. (Disorder relevance) The parameter* *β tunes the strength of the disorder in the model* P ^{ω,c} _{N} _{,β,h} (1.9), (1.4). When *β = 0, the sequence ω disappears and we obtain the so-* *called homogeneous pinning model. Roughly speaking, the effect of disorder is said* to be:

^{ω,c}

_{N}

_{,β,h}

*• irrelevant if the disordered model (β > 0) has the same qualitative behavior as the* homogeneous model (β = 0), provided the disorder is sufficiently weak (β 1);

*• relevant if, on the other hand, an arbitrarily small amount of disorder (any β > 0)* alters the qualitative behavior of the homogeneous model (β = 0).

### Recalling that *α is the exponent appearing in (1.1), it is known that disorder is irrelevant* for pinning models when *α <* ^{1} _{2} and relevant when *α >* ^{1} _{2} , while the case *α =* ^{1} _{2} is called marginal and is more delicate (see [20] and the references therein for an overview).

### It is natural to interpret our results from this perspective. For simplicity, in the sequel *we set h* *N* *:= ˆh L(N)/N* ^{α} , as in (1.11), and we use the notation P ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β}

^{α}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(d(τ/N))* (1.10), for the law of the rescaled set *τ/N under the pinning model.*

### In the homogeneous case (β = 0), it was shown in [31, Theorem 3.1] ^{1} that the weak limit of P ^{α;c} _{N T} _{,0,h}

^{α;c}

_{N T}

_{,0,h}

*N*

**(d(τ/N)) as N → ∞ is a probability law P** ^{α;c} _{T} _{,0, ˆh} on *C which* **is absolutely continuous with respect to the reference law P** ^{α;c} _{T} (recall (1.13)):

**(d(τ/N)) as N → ∞ is a probability law P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

_{,0, ˆh}

**is absolutely continuous with respect to the reference law P**

^{α;c}

_{T}

**dP** ^{α;c}

^{α;c}

*T* *,0, ˆh*

**dP** ^{α;c} _{T} **(τ) =** *e* ^{ˆhL}

^{α;c}

_{T}

**(τ) =**

^{ˆhL}

^{T}^{(τ)}

^{(τ)}**E[e** ^{ˆhL}

^{ˆhL}

^{T}^{(τ)} ] *,* (1.23)

^{(τ)}### where *L* *T* **(τ) denotes the so-called local time associated to the regenerative set τ. We** *stress that this result holds with no restriction on* *α ∈ (0, 1).*

**(τ) denotes the so-called local time associated to the regenerative set τ. We**

1

### Actually [31] considers the non-conditioned case (1.4), but it can be adapted to the conditioned case.

### Turning to the disordered model *β > 0, what happens for α ∈* 0, ^{1} _{2}

### ? In analogy with [9,11], we conjecture that for fixed *β > 0 small enough, the limit in distribution* of P ^{ω,c} _{N T} _{,β,h}

^{ω,c}

_{N T}

_{,β,h}

_{N}*(d(τ/N)) as N → ∞ is the same as for the homogeneous model (β = 0),* **i.e. the law P** ^{α;c}

^{α;c}

*T* *,0, ˆh* defined in (1.23). Thus, for *α ∈* 0, ^{1} _{2}

### , the continuum model is *non-disordered (deterministic) and absolutely continuous with respect to the reference* law.

### This is in striking contrast with the case *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1*

### , where our results show that the **continuum model P** ^{α;W,c}

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *is truly disordered and singular with respect to the reference* law (Theorems 1.3, 1.4, 1.5). In other terms, for *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1*

*, disorder survives in the* *scaling limit (even though* *β* *N* *, h* *N* → 0) and breaks down the absolute continuity with respect to the reference law, providing a clear manifestation of disorder relevance.

### We refer to [10] for a general discussion on disorder relevance in our framework.

**2. (Universality) The quenched law P** ^{α;W,c}

**2. (Universality) The quenched law P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* *of the CDPM is a random probability law* *on* *C, i.e. a random variable taking values in M* 1 *(C). Its distribution is a probability* law on the space *M* 1 *(C)—i.e. an element of M* 1 *(M* 1 *(C))—which is universal: it* *depends on few macroscopic parameters (the time horizon T , the disorder strength* and bias ˆ *β, ˆh and the exponent α) but not on finer details of the discrete model from* which it arises, such as the distributions of *ω* 1 and of *τ* 1 : all these details disappear in the scaling limit.

*Another important universal aspect of the CDPM is linked to phase transitions. We* do not explore this issue here, referring to [10, §1.3] for a detailed discussion, but we *mention that the CDPM leads to sharp predictions about the asymptotic behavior of* *the free energy and critical curve of discrete pinning models, in the weak disorder* regime *λ, h → 0.*

*3. (Bessel processes) In this paper we consider pinning models built on top of general* renewal processeses *τ = (τ* *k* *)* *k* ∈N

0 ### satisfying (1.1) and (1.7). In the special case when the renewal process is the zero level set of a Bessel-like random walk [1] (recall Remark 1.2), one can define the pinning model (1.4), (1.9) as a probability law on random walk paths (and not only on their zero level set).

### Rescaling the paths diffusively, one has an analogue of Theorem 1.3, in which the *CDPM is built as a random probability law on the space C* *([0, T ], R) of continu-* ous functions from *[0, T ] to R. Such an extended CDPM is a continuous process* **(X** *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,T ]* *, that can be heuristically described as a Bessel process of dimension* *δ = 2(1 − α) interacting with an independent Brownian environment W each time* *X* *t* = 0. The “original” CDPM of our Theorem 1.3 corresponds to the zero level set **τ := {t ∈ [0, T ] : X** *t* = 0}.

**(X**

**τ := {t ∈ [0, T ] : X**

### We stress that, starting from the zero level set **τ, one can reconstruct the whole** process **(X** *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,T ]* by pasting independent Bessel excusions on top of **τ (more pre-** cisely, since the open set **[0, T ]\τ is a countable union of disjoint open intervals,** one attaches a Bessel excursion to each of these intervals). ^{2} This provides a rigorous

**τ, one can reconstruct the whole**

**(X**

**τ (more pre-**

**[0, T ]\τ is a countable union of disjoint open intervals,**

2

### Alternatively, one can write down explicitly the f.d.d. of **(X**

**(X**

*t*

*)*

*t∈[0,T ]*

### in terms of the continuum partition

**functions Z**

**functions Z**

^{α;W,c}_{ˆβ,ˆh}*(s, t) (see Sect.* 2). We skip the details for the sake of brevity.

### definition of **(X** *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,T ]* in terms of **τ and shows that the zero level set is indeed the** fundamental object.

**(X**

**τ and shows that the zero level set is indeed the**

**4. (Infinite-volume limit) Our continuum model P** ^{α;W,c}

**4. (Infinite-volume limit) Our continuum model P**

^{α;W,c}

*T* *, ˆβ, ˆh* is built on a finite interval **[0, T ]. An interesting open problem is to let T → ∞, proving that P** ^{α;W,c} _{T} _{, ˆβ, ˆh} converges **in distribution to an infinite-volume CDPM P** ^{α;W,c} _{∞, ˆβ, ˆh} . Such a limit law would inherit scaling properties from the continuum partition functions, Theorem 2.4 (iii). (See also [29] for related work in the non-disordered case ˆ *β = 0).*

**[0, T ]. An interesting open problem is to let T → ∞, proving that P**

^{α;W,c}

_{T}

_{, ˆβ, ˆh}

**in distribution to an infinite-volume CDPM P**

^{α;W,c}

_{∞, ˆβ, ˆh}

### 1.5 Organization of the paper

### The rest of the paper is organized as follows.

### • In Sect. 2, we study the properties of continuum partition functions.

### • In Sect. 3, we prove Theorem 1.6 on the characterization of the CDPM, which also yields Theorem 1.3.

### • In Sect. 4, we prove Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 on the relations between the CDPM and the *α-stable regenerative set.*

### • In Appendix A, we describe the measure-theoretic background needed to study random closed subsets of R, which is of independent interest.

### • Lastly, in Appendices B and C we prove some auxiliary estimates.

**2 Continuum partition functions as a process** In this section we focus on a family

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* *of continuum partition* *functions for our model, which was recently introduced in [10] as the limit of the* discrete family (1.21) in the sense of finite-dimensional distributions. We upgrade this convergence to the process level (Theorem 2.1), which allows us to deduce important properties (Theorem 2.4). Besides their own interest, these results are the key to the construction of the CDPM.

### 2.1 Fine properties of continuum partition functions

### Recalling (1.21), where Z _{β,h} ^{ω,c} *(a, b) is defined for a, b ∈ N* 0 *, we extend Z* _{β,h} ^{ω,c} *(·, ·) to a* continuous function on

_{β,h}

^{ω,c}

_{β,h}

^{ω,c}

*[0, ∞)* ^{2} _{≤} *:= {(s, t) ∈ [0, ∞)* ^{2} *: 0 ≤ s ≤ t < ∞},*

### bisecting each unit square *[m − 1, m] × [n − 1, n], with m ≤ n ∈ N, along the main* *diagonal and linearly interpolating Z* ^{ω,c} _{β,h} *(·, ·) on each triangle. In this way, we can*

^{ω,c}

_{β,h}

### regard

*Z* ^{ω,c} _{β}

^{ω,c}

_{β}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(sN, t N)*

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* (2.1)

*as random variables taking values in the space C([0, ∞)* ^{2} _{≤} *, R), equipped with the*

### topology of uniform convergence on compact sets and with the corresponding Borel

*σ-algebra. The randomness comes from the disorder sequence ω = (ω* *n* *)* *n* ∈N .

### Even though our main interest in this paper is for *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1*

### , we also include the case *α > 1 in the following key result, which is proved in Sect.* 2.2 below.

**Theorem 2.1 (Process level convergence of partition functions) Let** *α ∈* _{1}

**Theorem 2.1 (Process level convergence of partition functions) Let**

### 2 *, 1*

### ∪ *(1, ∞), ˆβ > 0, ˆh ∈ R. Let τ be a renewal process satisfying (1.1) and (1.7), and* *ω be* *an i.i.d. sequence satisfying (1.3). For every N* *∈ N, define β* *N* *, h* *N* *by (recall (1.11))*

### ⎧ ⎪

### ⎪ ⎨

### ⎪ ⎪

### ⎩

*β* *N* *:= ˆβ* *L* *(N)* *N* ^{α−}

^{α−}

^{1}

^{2}

*h* *N* *:= ˆh* *L* *(N)* *N* ^{α}

^{α}

*for* *α ∈* _{1}

### 2 *, 1* *,*

### ⎧ ⎪

### ⎪ ⎨

### ⎪ ⎪

### ⎩

*β* *N* := *ˆβ*

### √ *N*

*h* *N* := *ˆh* *N*

*for* *α > 1.* (2.2)

*As N* *→ ∞ the two-parameter family* *Z* ^{ω,c} _{β}

^{ω,c}

_{β}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(sN, t N)*

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* *converges in dis-* *tribution on C* *([0, ∞)* ^{2} _{≤} *, R) to a family*

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* *, called continuum* *partition functions. For all 0* *≤ s ≤ t < ∞, one has the Wiener chaos representation*

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t) = 1 +*
∞ *k* =1

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### · · ·

*s* *<t*

1*<···<t*

*k*

*<t*

**ψ** ^{α;c} *s* *,t* *(t* 1 *, . . . , t* *k* *)*

**ψ**

^{α;c}

### *k* *i* =1

*( ˆβ dW* *t*

_{i}*+ ˆh dt* *i* *),* (2.3)

*where W* *= (W* *t* *)* *t* ≥0 *is a standard Brownian motion, the series in (2.3) converges* *in L* ^{2} *, and the kernel* **ψ** ^{α;c} *s* *,t* *(t* 1 *, . . . , t* *k* *) is defined as follows, with C* _{α} *as in (1.20) and* *t* 0 *:= s:*

**ψ**

^{α;c}

_{α}

**ψ** ^{α;c} *s* *,t* *(t* 1 *, . . . , t* *k* *) =*

**ψ**

^{α;c}

### ⎧ ⎪

### ⎪ ⎪

### ⎨

### ⎪ ⎪

### ⎪ ⎩

### *k*

*i* =1

*C* _{α} *(t* *i* *− t* *i* −1 *)* ^{1} ^{−α}

_{α}

^{−α}

### *(t − s)* ^{1} ^{−α}

^{−α}

*(t − t* *k* *)* ^{1} ^{−α} *if* *α ∈* _{1}

^{−α}

### 2 *, 1* *,* 1

### E[τ 1 ] ^{k} *if* *α > 1.*

^{k}

### (2.4)

*Remark 2.2 The integral in (2.3) is defined by expanding formally the product of* differentials and reducing to standard multiple Wiener and Lebesgue integrals. An alternative equivalent definition is to note that, by Girsanov’s theorem, the law of *( ˆβW* *t* *+ ˆht)* *t* *∈[0,T ]* is absolutely continuous w.r.t. that of *( ˆβW* *t* *)* *t* *∈[0,T ]* , with Radon–

### Nikodym density

### f _{T} _{, ˆβ, ˆh} *(W) := e*

_{T}

_{, ˆβ, ˆh}

_{ˆh}*ˆβ*

### *W*

*T*

### −

^{1}

_{2}

_{ˆh}*ˆβ*

*T* *.* (2.5)

### It follows that

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤t≤T* has the same law as

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,0} *(s, t)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,0}

### 0 *≤s≤t≤T* (for *ˆh = 0) under a change of measure with density (* 2.5). For further details, see [10].

*Remark 2.3 Theorem* 2.1 still holds if we also include the two-parameter family of *unconditioned partition functions*

*Z* _{β} ^{ω}

_{β}

^{ω}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(sN, t N)*

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* , defined the same way

*as Z* _{β,h} ^{ω,c} *(a, b) in (1.21), except for removing the conditioning on b* *∈ τ. The limiting*

_{β,h}

^{ω,c}

**process Z** ^{α;W} _{ˆβ,ˆh} **(s, t) will then have a kernel ψ** ^{α} *s* *,t* , which modifies **ψ** ^{α;c} *s* *,t* in (2.4), by

**process Z**

^{α;W}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

**(s, t) will then have a kernel ψ**

^{α}

**ψ**

^{α;c}

### setting

**ψ** ^{α} *s* *,t* *(t* 1 *, . . . , t* *k* *) =*

**ψ**

^{α}

### *k* *i* =1

*C* _{α}

_{α}

*(t* *i* *− t* *i* −1 *)* ^{1} ^{−α} *,* if *α ∈* _{1}

^{−α}

### 2 *, 1*

*.* (2.6)

### By Theorem 2.1, we can fix a version of the continuum partition functions **Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t) which is continuous in (s, t). This will be implicitly done henceforth.*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### We can then state some fundamental properties, proved in Sect. 2.3.

**Theorem 2.4 (Properties of continuum partition functions) For all** *α ∈* _{1}

**Theorem 2.4 (Properties of continuum partition functions) For all**

### 2 *, 1* *, ˆ* *β > 0,* *ˆh ∈ R the following properties hold:*

*(i) (Positivity) For a.e. realization of W , the function* **(s, t) → Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t) is con-* *tinuous and strictly positive at all 0* *≤ s ≤ t < ∞.*

**(s, t) → Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

*(ii) (Translation Invariance) For any fixed t* *> 0, the process*

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(t, t + u)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

*u* ≥0

*has the same distribution as*

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(0, u)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

*u* ≥0 *, and is independent of*

**Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, u)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤u≤t* *.*

*(iii) (Scaling Property) For any constant A* *> 0, one has the equality in distribution*

### **Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(As, At)*

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞*

### dist = **Z** ^{α;W,c}

**Z**

^{α;W,c}

*A*

^{α−1/2}*ˆβ,A*

^{α}*ˆh* *(s, t)*

### 0 *≤s≤t<∞* *.* (2.7) **(iv) (Renewal Property) Setting Z(s, t) := Z** ^{α;W,c} _{ˆβ,ˆh} *(s, t) for simplicity, for a.e. real-*

**(iv) (Renewal Property) Setting Z(s, t) := Z**

^{α;W,c}

_{ˆβ,ˆh}

*ization of W one has, for all 0* *≤ s < u < t < ∞,* *C* _{α} **Z(s, t)**

_{α}

**Z(s, t)**

*(t − s)* ^{1} ^{−α} =

^{−α}

*x* *∈(s,u)*

*y* *∈(u,t)*

*C* _{α} **Z(s, x)** *(x − s)* ^{1} ^{−α}

_{α}

**Z(s, x)**

^{−α}

### 1 *(y − x)* ^{1} ^{+α}

^{+α}

*C* _{α} **Z(y, t)** *(t − y)* ^{1} ^{−α} *dx dy,*

_{α}

**Z(y, t)**

^{−α}

### (2.8) *which can be rewritten, recalling (1.19), as follows:*

**Z(s, t) = E** ^{α;c} *t* *−s*

**Z(s, t) = E**

^{α;c}

### **Z**

**Z**

*s, g* *u* **(τ)** **Z**

**(τ)**

**Z**

### d _{u} **(τ), t**

_{u}

**(τ), t**

*.* (2.9)

### The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Theorems 2.1 and 2.4. We recall that assumption (1.1) entails the following key renewal estimates, with C _{α} as in (1.20):

_{α}

*u(n) := P(n ∈ τ) ∼*

### ⎧ ⎪

### ⎪ ⎨

### ⎪ ⎪

### ⎩ *C* _{α}

_{α}

*L(n)n* ^{1} ^{−α} if 0 *< α < 1,* 1

^{−α}

### E[τ 1 ] *= (const.) ∈ (0, ∞) if α > 1,*

### (2.10)

### by the classical renewal theorem for *α > 1 and by [* 12,18] for *α ∈ (0, 1). Let us also* note that the additional assumption (1.7) for *α ∈ (0, 1) can be rephrased as follows:*

*|u(q) − u(r)| ≤ C* *r* *− q* *r*

### _{δ}

_{δ}

*u(q),* *∀r ≥ q ≥ n* 0 *with r* *− q ≤ εr,* (2.11)

*up to a possible change of the constants C, n* 0 *, ε.*

### 2.2 Proof of Theorem 2.1

*We may assume T* *= 1. For convergence in distribution on C([0, 1]* ^{2} _{≤} *, R) it suffices* to show that *{(Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(sN, t N))* 0 *≤s≤t≤1* } *N* ∈N is a tight family, because the finite- dimensional distribution convergence was already obtained in [10] (see Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.3 therein). We break down the proof into five steps.

*Step 1. Moment criterion. We recall a moment criterion for the Hölder continuity of a* family of multi-dimensional stochastic processes, which was also used in [3] to prove similar tightness results for the directed polymer model. Using Garsia’s inequality [17, Lemma 2] with *
(x) = |x|* ^{p} and *ϕ(u) = u* ^{q} *for p* *≥ 1 and pq > 2d, the modulus of* *continuity of a continuous function f* *: [0, 1]* ^{d} → R can be controlled by

^{p}

^{q}

^{d}

*| f (x) − f (y)| ≤ 8*

### _{|x−y|}

_{|x−y|}

### 0 *
* ^{−1} *B*

*u* ^{2d}

^{2d}

### d *ϕ(u) = 8*

### _{|x−y|}

_{|x−y|}

### 0

*B* ^{1} ^{/p} *u* ^{2d} ^{/p} d *(u* ^{q} *)*

^{/p}

^{2d}

^{/p}

^{q}

### = *8B* ^{1} ^{/p} *q*

^{/p}

*q* *− 2d/p* *|x − y|* ^{q} ^{−2d/p} *,* where

^{q}

^{−2d/p}

*B* *= B( f ) =*

*[0,1]*

^{d}*×[0,1]*

^{d}### ⎛

*⎝ f (x) − f (y)* *ϕ*

*x* √ *−y* *d*

### ⎞

*⎠ dx dy*

*= d* ^{q} ^{/2}

^{q}

^{/2}

*[0,1]*

^{d}*×[0,1]*

^{d}*| f (x) − f (y)|* ^{p}

^{p}

*|x − y|* ^{pq} *dx dy.*

^{pq}

### Suppose now that *( f* *N* *)* *N* ∈N *are random continuous function on* *[0, 1]* ^{d} such that E[| f *N* *(x) − f* *N* *(y)|* ^{p} *] ≤ C|x − y|* ^{η} *,*

^{d}

^{p}

^{η}

*for some C* *, p, q, η ∈ (0, ∞) with pq > 2d and η > pq − d, uniformly in N ∈ N,* *x* *, y ∈ [0, 1]* ^{d} . Then E *[B( f* *N* *)] is bounded uniformly in N, hence {B( f* *N* *)}* *N* ∈N is *tight. If the functions f* *N* *are equibounded at some point (e.g. f* *N* *(0) = 1 for every* *N* *∈ N), the tightness of B( f* *N* *) entails the tightness of { f* *N* } *N* ∈N , by the Arzelà-Ascoli theorem [6, Theorem 7.3].

^{d}

### To prove the tightness of *{(Z* ^{ω,c} _{β}

^{ω,c}

_{β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(sN, t N))* 0 *≤s≤t≤1* } *N* ∈N , it then suffices to show that

### E *Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(s* 1 *N* *, t* 1 *N* *) − Z* ^{ω,c} _{β}

^{ω,c}

_{β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(s* 2 *N, t* 2 *N* *)* ^{p}

^{p}

*≤ C* #

*(s* 1 *− s* 2 *)* ^{2} *+ (t* 1 *− t* 2 *)* ^{2} _{η} *,* (2.12) which by triangle inequality, translation invariance and symmetry can be reduced to

_{η}

*∃C > 0, p ≥ 1, η > 2 :* E *Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(0, t N) − Z* ^{ω,c} _{β}

^{ω,c}

_{β}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(0, sN)* ^{p}

^{p}

*≤ C|t − s|* ^{η} *,*

^{η}

### (2.13)

*uniformly in N* *∈ N and 0 ≤ s < t ≤ 1. (Conditions pq > 2d and η > pq−d are then* *fulfilled by any q* *∈ (* ^{4} _{p} *,* ^{2} ^{+η} _{p} *), since d = 2). Since Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{p}

^{+η}

_{p}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(0, ·) is defined on [0, ∞)* via linear interpolation, it suffices to prove (2.13) for s, t with sN, t N ∈ {0} ∪ N.

*Step 2. Polynomial chaos expansion To simplify notation, let us denote*

*
* *N* *,r* *:= Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(0, r) = E*

### _{r} _{−1}

_{r}

*n* =1

*e* ^{(β}

^{(β}

^{N}^{ω}

^{ω}

^{n}^{−(β}

^{−(β}

^{N}^{)+h}

^{)+h}

^{N}^{)1}

^{)1}

^{{n∈τ}}*r ∈ τ*

*for r* *∈ N,*

### and *
* *N* *,0* *:= 1. Since e* ^{x} ^{1}

^{x}

^{{n∈τ}}*= 1 + (e* ^{x} *− 1)1* *{n∈τ}* *for all x* ∈ R, we set

^{x}

*ξ* *N* *,i* *:= e* ^{β}

^{β}

^{N}^{ω}

^{ω}

^{i}^{−(β}

^{−(β}

^{N}^{)+h}

^{)+h}

^{N}*− 1,* (2.14) and rewrite *
* *N* *,r* *as a polynomial chaos expansion:*

*
* *N* *,r* = E

### _{r} _{−1}

_{r}

*i* =1

### 1 *+ ξ* *N* *,i* 1 _{{i∈τ}} * r ∈ τ*

_{{i∈τ}}

### =

*I* *⊂{1,...,r−1}*

### P(I ⊂ τ|r ∈ τ)

*i* *∈I*

*ξ* *N* *,i* *,* (2.15) using the notation *{I ⊂ τ} :=* $

*i* *∈I* *{i ∈ τ}.*

### Recalling (2.2) and (1.3), it is easy to check that *E[ξ* *N* *,i* *] = e* ^{h}

^{h}

^{N}*− 1 = h* *N* *+ O(h* ^{2} *N* *),*

### # *Var(ξ* *N* *,i* *) =* % *e* ^{2h}

^{2h}

^{N}*e* ^{(2β}

^{(2β}

^{N}^{)−2(β}

^{)−2(β}

^{N}^{)} − 1

^{)}

### = %

*β* ^{2} _{N} *+ O(β* ^{3} _{N} *) = β* *N* *+ O(β* ^{2} *N* *),* (2.16) *where we used the fact that h* *N* *= o(β* *N* *) and we Taylor expanded (t) := log E[e* ^{t} ^{ω}

_{N}

_{N}

^{t}

^{ω}

^{1}

### ], noting that *(0) = * ^{} *(0) = 0 and * ^{} *(0) = 1. Thus h* *N* and *β* *N* are approximately the mean and standard deviation of *ξ* *N* *,i* . Let us rewrite *
* *N* *,r* in (2.15) using normalized variables *ζ* *N* *,i* :

*
* *N* *,r* =

*I* *⊂{1,...,r−1}*

*ψ* *N* *,r* *(I )*

*i* *∈I*

*ζ* *N* *,i* *,* where *ζ* *N* *,i* := 1 *β* *N*

*ξ* *N* *,i* *,* (2.17)

### where *ψ* *N* *,r* *(∅) := 1 and for I = {n* 1 *< n* 2 *< · · · < n* *k* } ⊂ N, recalling ( 2.10), we can write

*ψ* *N* *,r* *(I ) = ψ* *N* *,r* *(n* 1 *, . . . , n* *k* *) := β* _{N} ^{|I |} P(I ⊂ τ|r ∈ τ) = (β *N* *)* ^{k} 1 *u(r)*

_{N}

^{|I |}

^{k}

*k* +1 *i* =1

*u(n* *i* *−n* *i* −1 *),* (2.18) *with n* 0 *:= 0, n* *k* +1 *:= r.*

### To prove (2.13), we write Z _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(0, sN) =
* *N* *,q* *and Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

*N*

*,h*

*N*

*(0, t N) =
* *N* *,r* ,

*with q* *:= sN and r := t N, so that 0 ≤ q < r ≤ N. For a given truncation level*

*m* *= m(q, r, N) ∈ (0, q), that we will later choose as*

*m* *= m(q, r, N) :=*

### &

### 0 *if q* ≤ √

*N* *(r − q)* *q* − √

*N* *(r − q) otherwise,* (2.19)

### so that 0 *≤ m < q < r ≤ N, we write*

*
* *N* *,r* *−
* *N* *,q* *= * 1 *+ * 2 *− * 3

### with

### 1 =

*I* *⊂{1,...,m}*

### *ψ* *N* *,r* *(I ) − ψ* *N* *,q* *(I )*

*i* *∈I*

*ζ* *N* *,i* *,*

### 2 =

*I* *⊂{1,...,r−1}*

*I* *∩{m+1,...,r−1}=∅*

*ψ* *N* *,r* *(I )*

*i* *∈I*

*ζ* *N* *,i* *,* and

### 3 =

*I* *⊂{1,...,q−1}*

*I* *∩{m+1,...,q−1}=∅*

*ψ* *N* *,q* *(I )*

*i* *∈I*

*ζ* *N* *,i* *.* (2.20)

### To establish (2.13) and hence tightness, it suffices to show that for each i *= 1, 2, 3,*

*∃C > 0, p ≥ 1, η > 2 : E[|* *i* | ^{p} *] ≤ C* *r* *− q* *N*

^{p}

### _{η}

_{η}

*∀N ∈ N, 0 ≤ q < r ≤ N.*

### (2.21) *Step 3. Change of measure We now estimate the moments of* *ξ* *N* *,i* defined in (2.14).

### Since *(a + b)* ^{2k} ≤ 2 ^{2k} ^{−1} *(a* ^{2k} *+ b* ^{2k} *), for all k ∈ N, and h* *N* *= O(β* ^{2} _{N} *) by (2.2), we* can write

^{2k}

^{2k}

^{2k}

^{2k}

_{N}

*E[ξ* _{N} ^{2k} _{,i} ] ≤ 2 ^{2k} ^{−1} *e* ^{2k} ^{(h}

_{N}

^{2k}

_{,i}

^{2k}

^{2k}

^{(h}

^{N}^{−(β}

^{−(β}

^{N}^{))} E

^{))}

*e* ^{β}

^{β}

^{N}^{ω}

^{ω}

^{i}### − 1 *2k*

### + 2 ^{2k} ^{−1} *(e* ^{−(β}

^{2k}

^{−(β}

^{N}^{)+h}

^{)+h}

^{N}*− 1)* ^{2k}

^{2k}

*≤ C(k) β* _{N} ^{2k} E

_{N}

^{2k}

### 1 *β* *N*

### _{β}

_{β}

_{N}### 0

*ω* *i* *e* ^{t} ^{ω}

^{t}

^{ω}

^{i}*dt*

### *2k*

*+ O(β* ^{4k} _{N} *+ h* ^{2k} _{N} *)*

^{4k}

_{N}

^{2k}

_{N}

*≤ C(k)β* ^{2k} _{N} ^{−1}

^{2k}

_{N}

### _{β}

_{β}

_{N}### 0

*E[ω* ^{2k} _{i} *e* ^{2kt} ^{ω}

^{2k}

_{i}

^{2kt}

^{ω}

^{i}*]dt + o(β* ^{2k} _{N} *) = O(β* ^{2k} _{N} *),* (2.22)

^{2k}

_{N}

^{2k}

_{N}

### because *E[ω* ^{2k} _{i} *e* ^{2kt} ^{ω}

^{2k}

_{i}

^{2kt}

^{ω}

^{i}*] is uniformly bounded for t ∈ [0, t* 0 */4k] by our assumption (* 1.3).

### Recalling (2.16), (2.17) and (2.2), the random variables *(ζ* *N* *,i* *)* *i* ∈N are i.i.d. with

*E[ζ* *N* *,i* ] ∼

*N* →∞

*ˆh* *ˆβ*

### √ 1

*N* *,* *Var[ζ* *N* *,i* ] ∼

*N* →∞ 1, sup

*N* *,i∈N* *E[(ζ* *N* *,i* *)* ^{2k} *] < ∞. (2.23)*

^{2k}

### It follows, in particular, that *{ζ* _{N} ^{2} _{,i} } *i* *,N∈N* are uniformly integrable. We can then apply

_{N}

_{,i}

### a change of measure result established in [10, Lemma B.1], which asserts that we

### can construct i.i.d. random variables *(* *ζ* *N* *,i* *)* *i* ∈N with marginal distribution *P(* *ζ* *N* *,i* ∈ *dx) = f* *N* *(x)P(ζ* *N* *,i* *∈ dx), for which there exists C > 0 such that for all p ∈ R and* *i, N ∈ N*

### E[ *ζ* *N* *,i* *] = 0,* E[ *ζ* _{N} ^{2} _{,i} *] ≤ 1 + C/* √

_{N}

_{,i}

*N,* and *E[ f* *N* *(ζ* *N* *,i* *)* ^{p} *] ≤ 1 + C/N.*

^{p}

### (2.24) Let *i* be the analogue of *i* constructed from the *ζ* *N* *,i* ’s instead of the *ζ* *N* *,i* ’s. By Hölder,

### E

*|* *i* | ^{l} ^{−1}

^{l}

### = E

*|* *i* | ^{l} ^{−1}

^{l}

### *N* *i* =1

*f* *N* *(ζ* *N* *,i* *)*

^{l}^{−1}

^{l}### *N* *i* =1

*f* *N* *(ζ* *N* *,i* *)* ^{−}

^{l}^{−1}

^{l}### ≤ E

### | *i* | ^{l}

^{l}

^{l−1}_{l}### E

*f* *N* *(ζ* *N* *,1* *)* ^{1} ^{−l}

^{−l}

^{N}_{l}*≤ e*

^{C}^{l}### E

### | *i* | ^{l}

^{l}

^{l−1}_{l}*.*

### Relation (2.21), and hence the tightness of *{Z* _{β} ^{ω,c}

_{β}

^{ω,c}

_{N}_{,h}

_{,h}

_{N}*(·, ·)}* *N* ∈N , is thus reduced to show- ing

### E

### | *i* | ^{l}

^{l}

*≤ C* *r* *− q* *N*

### _{η}

_{η}

*for all N* *∈ N and 0 ≤ q < r ≤ N,* (2.25) *for some l* *∈ N, l ≥ 2 and η > 0 satisfying η > 2* _{l} _{−1} ^{l} .

_{l}

^{l}

*Step 4. Bounding* E[| 2 | ^{l} ]. We note that the bound for E[| 3 | ^{l} ] is exactly the same as that for E[| 2 | ^{l} ], and hence will be omitted. First we write 2 as

^{l}

^{l}

^{l}

### 2 =

*r* −1

*k* =1

### ^{(k)} _{2} *,* where ^{(k)} _{2} :=

^{(k)}

^{(k)}

*|I |=k,I ⊂{1,...,r−1}*

*I* *∩{m+1,...,r−1}=∅*

*ψ* *N* *,r* *(I )*

*i* *∈I*

### *ζ* *N* *,i* *, (2.26)*

### with ^{(k)} _{2} *consisting of all terms of degree k. The hypercontractivity established in* [26, Prop. 3.16 & 3.12] allows to estimates moments of order l in terms of moments of order 2: more precisely, setting *X* *p* *:= E[|X|* ^{p} ] ^{1} ^{/p} *, we have for all l* ≥ 2

^{(k)}

^{p}

^{/p}

### 2 ^{l} _{l} := E[| 2 | ^{l} ] ≤ ' _{r} _{−1}

^{l}

_{l}

^{l}

_{r}

*k* =1

### ^{(k)} _{2} *l*

^{(k)}

### ( *l*

### ≤ ' _{r} _{−1}

_{r}

*k* =1

*(c* *l* *)* ^{k} ^{(k)} _{2} 2

^{k}

^{(k)}

### ( *l*

*,* (2.27)

*where c* *l* := 2 √

*l* − 1 max *N* ∈N

### _{} _{ζ}

_{ζ}

*N,1*

*l*

### *ζ*

*N,1*2

*is finite and depends only on l, by (2.23).*

### We now turn to the estimation of ^{(k)} _{2} 2 . Let us recall the definition of *ψ* *N* *,r* in (2.18). It follows by (2.24) that *Var(* *ζ* *N* *,1* *) ≤ 1 + C/* √

^{(k)}

*N* *≤ 2 for all N large. We then* have

^{(k)}_{2}

^{2}

_{2}

### = E

*2 2*

^{(k)}### =

*k−1*

*y*=0

1*≤n*1*<···<ny≤m*
*m+1≤ny+1<···<nk≤r−1*

*ψ*

^{2}

_{N,r}*(n*

1*, . . . , n*

*k*

*)* V ar( *ζ*

*N,1*

*)*

^{k}