H-\beta+h_1)m} \racc.$$ On the other hand, it follows from decorrelation argument of Lemma \[samo\] that $$\label{inm4}
\log\pb\lcr \Omega_m\rcr\; \geq
- \, C\, \lpa  2^{h m_1} + 2^{m} \rpa\; \geq\; -\, C \, 2^m.$$ Using (\[inm3\]) and (\[inm4\]), we can now finish the proof exactly as in the case $p < +\infty$.

*(a) Contrary to [@LL1], the above proof does not require any entropy argument and relies only on an elementary estimate of the Schauder coefficients.*

\(b) It would be quite interesting to calculate the optimal rate $$\gamma_0\; =\; \inf\lacc\gamma > 0\;\lva\; \lim_{\ee\downarrow
0}\ee^{\gamma}\log\pb\lcr ||M|| \leq \ee \rcr\; = \; 0\racc.\right.$$ We did not study this question in details but it seems plausible that $\gamma_0 = 0$: indeed, $M$ is a $\CC^{\infty}$ process on $(0, +\infty)$, and one may expect subexponential rate for its small deviation probabilities.

Examples: particular semi-norms {#survey}
===============================

In this section, we place all our results in the context of the previous literature, and show what is new. We try to be as exhaustive as possible as far as RLP’s and LFSM’s are concerned. We refer to the surveys [@LS] [@Lf] for more information about other processes and for further references.

Everywhere $R$ (resp. $X$) will be an RLP (resp. an LFSM) with Hurst parameter $H > 0$ and stability index $\alpha\in (0,2]$, whereas $\|.\|$ will be a semi-norm in $\NN(\beta, p)$ or $\Nde(\beta, p)$ for some $\beta\in\R$ and $p\in (0, +\infty]$. We always suppose that $H > \beta + 1/p$ and set $$\gamma = (H-\beta-1/p)^{-1}$$ for our small deviation rate. $\k$ will stand for the small deviation constant appearing
H-\beta+h_1)m } \racc.$$ On the other hand, it follows from decorrelation argument of Lemma \[samo\ ] that $ $ \label{inm4 } 
 \log\pb\lcr \Omega_m\rcr\; \geq 
 - \, C\, \lpa   2^{h m_1 } + 2^{m } \rpa\; \geq\; -\, C \, 2^m.$$ use (\[inm3\ ]) and (\[inm4\ ]), we can nowadays finish the proof exactly as in the lawsuit $ p < + \infty$. 

 * (a) Contrary to [ @LL1 ], the above validation does not require any entropy argument and trust merely on an elementary estimate of the Schauder coefficient. * 

 \(b) It would be quite interesting to calculate the optimal rate $ $ \gamma_0\; = \; \inf\lacc\gamma > 0\;\lva\; \lim_{\ee\downarrow 
 0}\ee^{\gamma}\log\pb\lcr ||M|| \leq \ee \rcr\; = \; 0\racc.\right.$$ We did not study this doubt in details but it seems plausible that $ \gamma_0 = 0 $: indeed, $ M$ is a $ \CC^{\infty}$ process on $ (0, + \infty)$, and one may expect subexponential rate for its minor deviation probabilities. 

 Examples: finical semi - norms { # survey } 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 In this section, we place all our consequence in the context of the previous literature, and show what is new. We try to be as exhaustive as potential as far as RLP ’s and LFSM ’s are concerned. We refer to the surveys [ @LS ] [ @Lf ] for more information about other process and for further reference. 

 Everywhere $ R$ (resp. $ X$) will be an RLP (resp. an LFSM) with Hurst parameter $ H > 0 $ and stability index $ \alpha\in (0,2]$, whereas $ \|.\|$ will be a semi - norm in $ \NN(\beta, p)$ or $ \Nde(\beta, p)$ for some $ \beta\in\R$ and $ p\in (0, + \infty]$. We always suppose that $ H > \beta + 1 / p$ and sic $ $ \gamma = (H-\beta-1 / p)^{-1}$$ for our small deviation pace. $ \k$ will digest for the humble deviation constant appearing
H-\beha+h_1)m} \racc.$$ On the other hxnd, it follows yeom derorrelafion argjment of Lemma \[samo\] that $$\labxl{inn4}
\log\pv\lcr \Omega_m\rcr\; \geq
- \, C\, \upa  2^{h m_1} + 2^{m} \rpa\; \gwq\; -\, R \, 2^m.$$ Using (\[inm3\]) ais (\[inm4\]), wc can kow fnnmsh the proof ewactly as it the case $p < +\hnwtv$.

*(a) Contrary to [@LL1], the above proof doqs not teeuire any entrjpy swgumsnt and relies only on an elementady estikate of the Svhauder coefficients.*

\(b) It wluld be quite interestlng to calcomatq the optimal rate $$\gamma_0\; =\; \inf\lacc\gajma > 0\;\lva\; \lim_{\ee\downarrow
0}\ee^{\gamma}\lug\pb\ler ||M|| \leq \ee \rxr\; = \; 0\racc.\right.$$ Xe did not study tmps quesdion in details but ib seeks plausible that $\gamma_0 = 0$: indeed, $M$ is a $\CC^{\ynfty}$ proweas on $(0, +\infty)$, and inw may expact rybebpoheitizl ratf fkr its smaml deviatiob probabilities.

Examklef: particular ssmi-noris {#survey}
===============================

In this section, we place all our reaults in the context of the previous literatore, and shjw what is new. We try to be as exhaustive as posshble es fax as RUP’s and LFSM’s are concerned. We refer to the survqgs [@LX] [@Lf] for more lnformation about ptjet processes ana for yhrfher references.

Evegywhere $R$ (rewp. $X$) will be sn RLP (resp. an LFSM) with Huest parameteg $H > 0$ and stability inbex $\alpha\in (0,2]$, wheteas $\|.\|$ eill be a semi-norm in $\NU(\beta, l)$ or $\Nde(\betw, p)$ for skoe $\beta\in\R$ and $p\kn (0, +\itfty]$. We always suppose thae $H > \beta + 1/p$ cnd set $$\eamms = (H-\beea-1/p)^{-1}$$ for oug small deviation rate. $\k$ will sdand for tje small deviation constant appxering
H-\beta+h_1)m} \racc.$$ On the other hand, it decorrelation of Lemma that $$\label{inm4} \log\pb\lcr \lpa m_1} + 2^{m} \geq\; -\, C 2^m.$$ Using (\[inm3\]) and (\[inm4\]), we now finish the proof exactly as in the case $p < +\infty$. *(a) to [@LL1], the above proof does not require any entropy argument and relies on elementary of Schauder coefficients.* \(b) It would be quite interesting to calculate the optimal rate $$\gamma_0\; =\; \inf\lacc\gamma 0\;\lva\; \lim_{\ee\downarrow 0}\ee^{\gamma}\log\pb\lcr ||M|| \leq \ee \rcr\; = 0\racc.\right.$$ We did not this question in details but seems that $\gamma_0 0$: $M$ a $\CC^{\infty}$ process $(0, +\infty)$, and one may expect subexponential rate for its small deviation probabilities. Examples: particular semi-norms {#survey} In this place all results the of the previous show what is new. We try exhaustive as possible as far as RLP’s and are concerned. refer to the surveys [@LS] [@Lf] more information about other processes and for further Everywhere $R$ (resp. $X$) will be an RLP (resp. an LFSM) with Hurst parameter $H and stability index $\alpha\in whereas $\|.\|$ will a in p)$ $\Nde(\beta, p)$ some $\beta\in\R$ and $p\in (0, +\infty]$. We always suppose that $H \beta + 1/p$ and set $$\gamma = (H-\beta-1/p)^{-1}$$ for our rate. will stand for small deviation constant appearing
H-\beta+h_1)m} \racc.$$ On the other hand, It follows fRom deCorRelAtIon aRgumEnt of Lemma \[samo\] THat $$\lAbel{inm4}
\log\pb\lcr \Omega_m\rCr\; \geq
- \, c\, \lPA  2^{h m_1} + 2^{m} \RPa\; \Geq\; -\, C \, 2^m.$$ using (\[inM3\]) AnD (\[INm4\]), wE cAn Now FiNIsH the pRooF exactlY as in the caSe $p < +\InFty$.

*(a) Contrary TO [@Ll1], the above pRooF does not requIre Any entRoPy aRGumenT anD reliEs only ON an eleMentary esTiMAte of tHE SchaudER CoEffiCients.*

\(b) It would be qUItE Interesting to cAlculaTe THe OPTimAl rAte $$\gamma_0\; =\; \inF\lAcc\gaMMa > 0\;\lva\; \liM_{\Ee\DOWNarROw
0}\ee^{\gamma}\log\pB\lcr ||M|| \leq \ee \rCR\; = \; 0\raCc.\righT.$$ WE diD Not stuDy thiS qUEstIon in detailS but It seems plAusiblE That $\gamMA_0 = 0$: indeed, $m$ is a $\CC^{\InfTy}$ pRoceSS oN $(0, +\iNftY)$, aND onE MaY exPEct SubexponEnTiAl ratE for ITS SMall DevIatiOn proBabilities.

ExaMplEs: paRTicUlar sEmi-noRms {#sUrVey}
===============================

In This seCtion, We Place all our resuLts iN the conteXt oF tHe pReVious LIteratUre, And Show whaT is new. WE Try To BE AS eXhaustive as possiblE aS FAr As RLP’s anD LFSM’s ARe CoNCerned. We ReFer To thE SUrveyS [@LS] [@LF] FoR more infOrmatiON aBoUt other PrOcesseS aNd fOr fUrtheR RefeRences.

everywheRe $R$ (reSP. $X$) will be an RLP (rESp. an LFSM) with HURsT PArAMeteR $H > 0$ aNd stability IndeX $\AlphA\in (0,2]$, wHErEas $\|.\|$ WIll be A semi-NoRM iN $\nN(\beta, p)$ or $\Nde(\beta, p)$ foR sOme $\betA\in\R$ aNd $p\in (0, +\infty]$. We aLways suppoSE THat $H > \beta + 1/P$ and SEt $$\GAmma = (H-\beta-1/p)^{-1}$$ for oUr smaLl deviatioN Rate. $\k$ wilL stanD for the sMall deviaTIOn constaNt aPpeAriNg
H-\beta+h_1)m} \racc.$$ On  the other  hand , i t f ol lows  fro m decorrelatio n  arg ument of Lemma \[samo\ ] tha t$ $\la b el {inm4 }
\log\ p b\ l c r \ Om eg a_m \r c r\ ; \ge q
-  \, C\,  \lpa  2^{ h m _1 } + 2^{m} \r p a\ ; \geq\; - \,C \, 2^m.$$Usi ng (\[ in m3\ ] ) and  (\ [inm4 \]), w e  can n ow finish  t h e proo f  exactl y as  inthe case $p < +\i n ft y $.

*(a) Contr ary to  [ @ LL 1 ] , t heabove proo fdoesn ot requ i re a n y e n tropy argumen t and relie s  on ly onan  el e mentar y est im a teof the Scha uder  coeffici ents.* 
\(b) I t  wouldbe qui teint eres t in gtoca l cul a te  th e  op timal ra te  $ $\gam ma_0 \ ; = \; \ inf \lac c\gam ma > 0\;\lva\ ; \ lim_ { \ee \down arrow 
0}\ ee ^{\ga mma}\l og\pb \l cr ||M|| \leq \ ee \ rcr\; = \ ; 0 \r acc .\ right . $$ Wedid  no t study  this q u est io n i ndetails but it see ms p la usible t hat $\ g am ma _ 0 = 0$:in dee d, $ M $  is a  $\C C ^{ \infty}$  proce s son  $(0, + \i nfty)$ ,and  on e may expe ct sub exponent ial r a te for its sma l l deviation p r ob a b il i ties .
Examples: p arti c ular  sem i -n orm s  {#su rvey} 
= = == = =================== == =====
In t his section,we place a l l our resu ltsi nt he context ofthe p revious li t erature,  andshow wha t is new. W e try to  be  as  ex hau s t iv e as possible a s fa ras RLP’ s a nd LFSM ’sare  co nce rn ed. We re fer to t he  s ur ve ys[@LS] [@Lf] fo rmor einf ormat i on abo ut ot herpr oc e sse s and f o rf u rthe rre fere nce s. 

Eve rywh e re$R$ (re sp. $X$)wil l  bean  R LP (res p. an LFSM) w it h Hurst pa ra met er $H> 0$ and s tability index $\alpha\ i n (0,2] $,where as $ \|.\|$ wi llbe a s emi - norm i n $\NN (\bet a,  p) $ or $\ N d e( \be ta , p)$ fors o me$\bet a\ in\R $ and $ p\in (0, +\infty]$ .  We  always suppo sethat $ H> \ b et a  +1/ p $ a n d  set $$\gamma =  (H-\beta- 1/ p )^ {-1}$$ for our  s mall de viation  rate .  $\k$ w ill stand  for thesm alld e via tion const ant appe aring
H-\beta+h_1)m} \racc.$$_On the_other hand, it follows_from decorrelation_argument_of Lemma_\[samo\]_that $$\label{inm4}
\log\pb\lcr \Omega_m\rcr\;_\geq
- \, C\,_\lpa  2^{h m_1}_+ 2^{m} \rpa\;_\geq\;_-\, C \, 2^m.$$ Using (\[inm3\]) and (\[inm4\]), we can now finish the proof_exactly_as in_the_case_$p < +\infty$.

*(a) Contrary to_[@LL1], the above proof does_not require_any entropy argument and relies only on an_elementary_estimate of the_Schauder coefficients.*

\(b) It would be quite interesting to calculate_the optimal rate $$\gamma_0\; =\; \inf\lacc\gamma_> 0\;\lva\; \lim_{\ee\downarrow
0}\ee^{\gamma}\log\pb\lcr_||M||_\leq_\ee \rcr\; = \;_0\racc.\right.$$ We did not study this_question in details but it seems_plausible that $\gamma_0 = 0$: indeed, $M$_is a $\CC^{\infty}$ process on $(0,_+\infty)$, and one may expect_subexponential rate_for its small deviation probabilities.

Examples:_particular semi-norms {#survey}
===============================

In_this section,_we place all_our results in the context of_the previous literature,_and show what is new. We_try_to be as_exhaustive_as_possible as_far as RLP’s_and_LFSM’s are_concerned._We refer to the surveys [@LS]_[@Lf]_for more information about other processes and_for further references.

Everywhere $R$_(resp._$X$) will be an_RLP (resp. an LFSM) with_Hurst parameter $H > 0$ and_stability index_$\alpha\in (0,2]$,_whereas $\|.\|$ will be a semi-norm in $\NN(\beta, p)$ or $\Nde(\beta,_p)$ for some $\beta\in\R$ and $p\in_(0, +\infty]$. We always_suppose that_$H_> \beta +_1/p$_and set_$$\gamma = (H-\beta-1/p)^{-1}$$ for our small deviation_rate. $\k$_will stand for the small deviation_constant appearing