TheoremBase

Proof of Mean-Square Linearization Residual of the State Fluctuation Process

lemmalem:fluctuation-linearization-residual-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v2Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
· 16,600 chars · 24 deps · depth 18 Reason: Proof of the linearization residual lemma: Taylor expansion of the extended drift along the simplex segment with the drift-regularity constants (M2 = 3lK, M1 = l(B+K)), full product-measurability build via the simplex-modified substitute maps, exact integral form from the martingale decomposition and the mean-field pair dynamics, and the min-form mean-square bound via the interval toolkit's Cauchy-Schwarz with L2-finiteness of the residual sections established beforehand. Internally reviewed (two rounds; all findings resolved, including the L2-finiteness blocker).

Proof

Throughout, adopt the notation of the statement (gsg_s, zsz_s, Λ\Lambda, EsE_s, Bs\mathsf{B}_s, ese_s, Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}, Rt\mathcal{R}_t), write xs=(Ss,As)x_s=(S_s,A_s) and ys=(Σs,αs)y_s=(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s) as points of Rl+m\mathbb{R}^{l+m} under the coordinate identification of the extension definition, so that ys−xs=zs/Ny_s-x_s=z_s/\sqrt{N} pointwise, and write pˉ=(1/l,…,1/l)\bar{p}=(1/l,\dots,1/l), a point of the probability simplex Δl\Delta^l. All integrals over [0,t][0,t] below are 00 for t=0t=0; at t=0t=0 the identity of clause (c) reduces to M0=0M_0=0, which is the t=0t=0 case of the definition of MγM^\gamma in clause (b) of the martingale decomposition, and both displays of clause (d) read 0≤00\le0. Accordingly, wherever an integral over [0,t][0,t] is manipulated we take t>0t>0.

Step 1: pointwise bounds (clause (a)). Fix (s,ω)∈[0,T]×Ω(s,\omega)\in[0,T]\times\Omega. By the definition of the controlled NN-agent dynamics, the state processes take values in {1,…,l}\{1,\dots,l\} at every point, so the empirical state measure Σs(ω)\Sigma_s(\omega) lies in Δl\Delta^l; and Ss∈ΔlS_s\in\Delta^l, the mean-field trajectory pair having S:[0,T]→ΔlS:[0,T]\to\Delta^l. Hence xsx_s and ysy_s lie in Δl×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m, and so does every point of the segment {xs+τ(ys−xs):τ∈[0,1]}\{x_s+\tau(y_s-x_s):\tau\in[0,1]\}: the convex combination (1−τ)Ss+τΣs(ω)(1-\tau)S_s+\tau\Sigma_s(\omega) of two points of the simplex has nonnegative entries with sum (1−τ)+τ=1(1-\tau)+\tau=1, and the last mm coordinates are unconstrained. By clause (i) of the regularity of the extended aggregate state drift, bˉ\bar{b} agrees with bb on Δl×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m, and each bˉγ\bar{b}^\gamma is a C1C^1 map on the open set U×RmU\times\mathbb{R}^m whose partial derivatives are again C1C^1; also Δl×Rm⊆U×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m\subseteq U\times\mathbb{R}^m. Therefore the Taylor lemma applies to f=bˉγf=\bar{b}^\gamma with n=l+mn=l+m, x=xsx=x_s, y=ysy=y_s, h=zs(ω)/Nh=z_s(\omega)/\sqrt{N}. By the definitions of EsE_s and Bs\mathsf{B}_s,

(Esss+Bsas)γ=∑i=1l+m∂ibˉγ(xs) zsi,esγ=N (bˉγ(ys)−bˉγ(xs)−∑i=1l+m∂ibˉγ(xs) zsiN).\big(E_s\mathfrak{s}_s+\mathsf{B}_s\mathfrak{a}_s\big)^\gamma=\sum_{i=1}^{l+m}\partial_i\bar{b}^\gamma(x_s)\,z^i_s,\qquad\qquad e^\gamma_s=\sqrt{N}\,\Big(\bar{b}^\gamma(y_s)-\bar{b}^\gamma(x_s)-\sum_{i=1}^{l+m}\partial_i\bar{b}^\gamma(x_s)\,\frac{z^i_s}{\sqrt{N}}\Big).

Part (ii) of the Taylor lemma with M2=3 l KM_2=3\,l\,K — a bound for all second-order partials of bˉγ\bar{b}^\gamma on Δl×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m, hence on the segment, by clause (iii) of the drift regularity lemma — gives

∣esγ∣ ≤ N⋅12 (l+m) 3 l K ∣zs∣2N = 3 l K (l+m)2N ∣zs∣2,|e^\gamma_s|\ \le\ \sqrt{N}\cdot\tfrac{1}{2}\,(l+m)\,3\,l\,K\,\frac{|z_s|^2}{N}\ =\ \frac{3\,l\,K\,(l+m)}{2\sqrt{N}}\,|z_s|^2,

and ∣es∣≤l max⁡γ∣esγ∣|e_s|\le\sqrt{l}\,\max_\gamma|e^\gamma_s| (the elementary inequality ∑γ(esγ)2≤l max⁡γ(esγ)2\sum_\gamma(e^\gamma_s)^2\le l\,\max_\gamma(e^\gamma_s)^2) yields the first bound of clause (a). Part (i) of the Taylor lemma with M1=l (B+K)M_1=l\,(B+K) (clause (ii) of the drift regularity lemma) gives ∣gsγ∣≤N⋅l+m  l (B+K) ∣zs∣/N|g^\gamma_s|\le\sqrt{N}\cdot\sqrt{l+m}\;l\,(B+K)\,|z_s|/\sqrt{N}, so ∣gs∣≤l l+m  l (B+K) ∣zs∣=Λ ∣zs∣|g_s|\le\sqrt{l}\,\sqrt{l+m}\;l\,(B+K)\,|z_s|=\Lambda\,|z_s| by the same elementary inequality; and ∣(Esss+Bsas)γ∣≤∑i=1l+m∣∂ibˉγ(xs)∣ ∣zsi∣≤l (B+K) l+m ∣zs∣|(E_s\mathfrak{s}_s+\mathsf{B}_s\mathfrak{a}_s)^\gamma|\le\sum_{i=1}^{l+m}|\partial_i\bar{b}^\gamma(x_s)|\,|z^i_s|\le l\,(B+K)\,\sqrt{l+m}\,|z_s|, by clause (ii) and the elementary inequality ∑i=1l+m∣zsi∣≤l+m ∣zs∣\sum_{i=1}^{l+m}|z^i_s|\le\sqrt{l+m}\,|z_s| (an instance of 2λμ≤λ2+μ22\lambda\mu\le\lambda^2+\mu^2 summed over indices), so ∣Esss+Bsas∣≤Λ ∣zs∣|E_s\mathfrak{s}_s+\mathsf{B}_s\mathfrak{a}_s|\le\Lambda\,|z_s|. The triangle inequality (the Euclidean distance is a metric) gives ∣es∣≤∣gs∣+∣Esss+Bsas∣≤2 Λ ∣zs∣|e_s|\le|g_s|+|E_s\mathfrak{s}_s+\mathsf{B}_s\mathfrak{a}_s|\le2\,\Lambda\,|z_s|. No use of the hypothesis A<∞\mathcal{A}<\infty was made.

Step 2: measurability and the residual process (clause (b)). Define Σ~sγ=1Ω0Σsγ+(1−1Ω0) pˉγ\tilde{\Sigma}^\gamma_s=\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\Sigma^\gamma_s+(1-\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0})\,\bar{p}^\gamma and α~sj=1Ω0αsj\tilde{\alpha}^j_s=\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\alpha^j_s, so that Σ~s(ω)∈Δl\tilde{\Sigma}_s(\omega)\in\Delta^l at every point. The maps (s,ω)↦1Ω0(ω)Σsγ(ω)(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}(\omega)\Sigma^\gamma_s(\omega) and (s,ω)↦1Ω0(ω)αsj(ω)(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}(\omega)\alpha^j_s(\omega) are measurable with respect to the product σ\sigma-algebra of the trace Borel σ\sigma-algebra on [0,T][0,T] and F\mathcal{F}, by clauses (b) and (c) of the joint measurability of the state and control; and (s,ω)↦1Ω0(ω)(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}(\omega) is product-measurable as the indicator of the measurable rectangle [0,T]×Ω0[0,T]\times\Omega_0 (Ω0∈F\Omega_0\in\mathcal{F} by the controlled-dynamics definition, and rectangles generate the product σ\sigma-algebra). Hence Σ~γ\tilde{\Sigma}^\gamma and α~j\tilde{\alpha}^j are product-measurable. The function

Fγ(s,Σ,α)=N (bˉγ(Σ,α)−bˉγ(Ss,As))−∑i=1l+m∂ibˉγ(Ss,As)⋅(N (Σ−Ss, α−As))iF^\gamma(s,\Sigma,\alpha)=\sqrt{N}\,\Big(\bar{b}^\gamma(\Sigma,\alpha)-\bar{b}^\gamma(S_s,A_s)\Big)-\sum_{i=1}^{l+m}\partial_i\bar{b}^\gamma(S_s,A_s)\cdot\big(\sqrt{N}\,(\Sigma-S_s,\ \alpha-A_s)\big)^i

is jointly continuous, hence sequentially continuous, on [0,T]×U×Rm⊆R1+l+m[0,T]\times U\times\mathbb{R}^m\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{1+l+m}, since bˉγ\bar{b}^\gamma and its partial derivatives are continuous (clause (i) of the drift regularity lemma) and the trajectory pair (S,A)(S,A) is continuous; and, using bˉ=b\bar{b}=b on Δl×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m (Step 1), 1Ω0esγ=1Ω0⋅Fγ(s,Σ~s,α~s)\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma_s=\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\cdot F^\gamma(s,\tilde{\Sigma}_s,\tilde{\alpha}_s) at every point of [0,T]×Ω[0,T]\times\Omega, the arguments lying in the domain of FγF^\gamma everywhere since Σ~s∈Δl⊆U\tilde{\Sigma}_s\in\Delta^l\subseteq U. By measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable Euclidean maps — applied to FγF^\gamma composed with the measurable maps (s,ω)↦s(s,\omega)\mapsto s, Σ~γ\tilde{\Sigma}^\gamma, α~j\tilde{\alpha}^j, and once more to the product with 1Ω0\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0} — each (s,ω)↦1Ω0esγ(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma_s is product-measurable. The same argument makes (s,ω)↦1Ω0∣ss∣(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}|\mathfrak{s}_s|, (s,ω)↦1Ω0∣as∣(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}|\mathfrak{a}_s|, their squares, and, for Step 4, (s,ω)↦1Ω0ws(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}w_s with ws=min⁡(3llK(l+m)2N∣zs∣2, 2Λ∣zs∣)2w_s=\min\big(\tfrac{3l\sqrt{l}K(l+m)}{2\sqrt{N}}|z_s|^2,\,2\Lambda|z_s|\big)^2 and (s,ω)↦1Ω0∣zs∣4(s,\omega)\mapsto\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}|z_s|^4, product-measurable.

By the Tonelli theorem (the trace Lebesgue measure of the toolkit and PP being finite, hence σ\sigma-finite, measures), Φa(ω)=∫[0,T]1Ω0(ω) ∣as(ω)∣2 ds\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(\omega)=\int_{[0,T]}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}(\omega)\,|\mathfrak{a}_s(\omega)|^2\,ds defines a measurable [0,∞][0,\infty]-valued function of ω\omega with E[Φa]=A\mathbb{E}[\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}]=\mathcal{A} (the expectations defining A\mathcal{A} are unchanged by the 1Ω0\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0} modification because Ω0\Omega_0 has probability 11, as recorded in clause (a) of the a priori second-moment bound); for ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_0 its defining section is s↦∣as(ω)∣2s\mapsto|\mathfrak{a}_s(\omega)|^2, so Ωa=Ω0∩{ω:Φa(ω)<∞}\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}=\Omega_0\cap\{\omega:\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(\omega)<\infty\} is an event. For every natural number nn one has Φa≥n 1{Φa=∞}\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}\ge n\,\mathbf{1}_{\{\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}=\infty\}} pointwise, so monotonicity and the integral of a simple function give A≥n P(Φa=∞)\mathcal{A}\ge n\,P(\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}=\infty), forcing P(Φa=∞)=0P(\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}=\infty)=0; as Ω0\Omega_0 has probability 11, so does Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}.

Fix ω∈Ωa\omega\in\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}} and t∈(0,T]t\in(0,T]. The sections s↦esγ(ω)s\mapsto e^\gamma_s(\omega) are measurable on [0,T][0,T]: they are the differences of the sections at ω\omega of the product-measurable maps (1Ω0eγ)+(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma)^{+} and (1Ω0eγ)−(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma)^{-} (product-measurable as continuous functions of 1Ω0eγ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma; sections of product-measurable [0,∞][0,\infty]-valued maps are measurable, as in the Tonelli theorem), and 1Ω0(ω)=1\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}(\omega)=1; the same argument gives measurability of the sections at ω\omega of 1Ω0∣ss∣\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}|\mathfrak{s}_s|, 1Ω0∣as∣\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}|\mathfrak{a}_s|, and their squares. By Step 1 and the estimates ∣ss(ω)∣≤2N|\mathfrak{s}_s(\omega)|\le2\sqrt{N} (points of Δl\Delta^l have Euclidean norm at most 11, their entries lying in [0,1][0,1] with sum 11, so that ∑γ(Σγ)2≤∑γΣγ=1\sum_\gamma(\Sigma^\gamma)^2\le\sum_\gamma\Sigma^\gamma=1, and ∣Σs−Ss∣≤∣Σs∣+∣Ss∣≤2|\Sigma_s-S_s|\le|\Sigma_s|+|S_s|\le2 by the triangle inequality, the Euclidean distance being a metric), ∣zs∣≤∣ss∣+∣as∣|z_s|\le|\mathfrak{s}_s|+|\mathfrak{a}_s| (the square of the left side being the sum of the squares of the two blocks), and ∣as∣≤12(1+∣as∣2)|\mathfrak{a}_s|\le\tfrac12(1+|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2),

∫[0,t]∣esγ(ω)∣ ds ≤ 2Λ∫[0,t](∣ss(ω)∣+∣as(ω)∣) ds ≤ 2Λ (2N T+T2+12 Φa(ω)) < ∞,\int_{[0,t]}|e^\gamma_s(\omega)|\,ds\ \le\ 2\Lambda\int_{[0,t]}\big(|\mathfrak{s}_s(\omega)|+|\mathfrak{a}_s(\omega)|\big)\,ds\ \le\ 2\Lambda\,\Big(2\sqrt{N}\,T+\tfrac{T}{2}+\tfrac{1}{2}\,\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(\omega)\Big)\ <\ \infty ,

and moreover, by the second bound of clause (a),

∫[0,t](esγ(ω))2 ds ≤ 4Λ2∫[0,t](∣ss(ω)∣2+∣as(ω)∣2) ds ≤ 4Λ2(4N T+Φa(ω)) < ∞,\int_{[0,t]}\big(e^\gamma_s(\omega)\big)^2\,ds\ \le\ 4\Lambda^2\int_{[0,t]}\big(|\mathfrak{s}_s(\omega)|^2+|\mathfrak{a}_s(\omega)|^2\big)\,ds\ \le\ 4\Lambda^2\big(4N\,T+\Phi_{\mathfrak{a}}(\omega)\big)\ <\ \infty ,

both by monotonicity (using ∣esγ∣2≤∣es∣2≤4Λ2∣zs∣2=4Λ2(∣ss∣2+∣as∣2)|e^\gamma_s|^2\le|e_s|^2\le4\Lambda^2|z_s|^2=4\Lambda^2(|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2+|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2)); so each section is Lebesgue integrable over [0,t][0,t], with square-integrable modulus, and Rt\mathcal{R}_t is defined as in the statement. Each Rtγ\mathcal{R}^\gamma_t is a random variable: by the Tonelli theorem the integrals over [0,t][0,t] of (1Ω0eγ)±(\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma)^{\pm} define measurable [0,∞][0,\infty]-valued functions of ω\omega, finite on Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}} by the first bound just displayed, and Rtγ\mathcal{R}^\gamma_t is the difference of the functions equal to them on Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}} and to 00 off Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}.

Step 3: integral form (clause (c)). Let Ω∗\Omega_* be the intersection of Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}} with the almost-sure event of clause (a) of the martingale decomposition; Ω∗\Omega_* is an event of probability 11, being an intersection of two events of probability 11. Fix ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_*, γ∈{1,…,l}\gamma\in\{1,\dots,l\}, and t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T]. First, the relevant sections are measurable and integrable over [0,t][0,t] at ω\omega: the path s↦bγ(Σs,αs)s\mapsto b^\gamma(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s) is measurable and bounded in absolute value by 2(l−1)B2(l-1)B by clause (a) of the martingale decomposition; the function s↦bγ(Ss,As)s\mapsto b^\gamma(S_s,A_s) is continuous — this is part of clause 2 of the mean-field trajectory pair — hence measurable, and bounded in absolute value by 2(l−1)B2(l-1)B as well, since by the definition of the aggregate state drift bγ(Σ,α)b^\gamma(\Sigma,\alpha) is a sum over the l−1l-1 states σ≠γ\sigma\neq\gamma of terms Σσβ(σ,γ,Σ,α)−Σγβ(γ,σ,Σ,α)\Sigma^\sigma\beta(\sigma,\gamma,\Sigma,\alpha)-\Sigma^\gamma\beta(\gamma,\sigma,\Sigma,\alpha) with 0≤Σσ,Σγ≤10\le\Sigma^\sigma,\Sigma^\gamma\le1 on Δl\Delta^l and ∣β∣≤B|\beta|\le B by the rate bound of the transition-rate family, so that ∣bγ∣≤2(l−1)B|b^\gamma|\le2(l-1)B at every point of Δl×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m; hence s↦gsγ(ω)s\mapsto g^\gamma_s(\omega) is measurable and bounded by 4(l−1)BN4(l-1)B\sqrt{N}, and integrable over [0,t][0,t]; the section s↦esγ(ω)s\mapsto e^\gamma_s(\omega) is measurable and integrable by Step 2; and the section s↦(Esss+Bsas)γ(ω)=gsγ(ω)−esγ(ω)s\mapsto(E_s\mathfrak{s}_s+\mathsf{B}_s\mathfrak{a}_s)^\gamma(\omega)=g^\gamma_s(\omega)-e^\gamma_s(\omega) is measurable as their difference and dominated by Λ ∣zs(ω)∣\Lambda\,|z_s(\omega)|, integrable over [0,t][0,t] as in Step 2. Now, by the definition of MγM^\gamma in clause (b) of the martingale decomposition,

Σtγ=Σ0γ+∫[0,t]bγ(Σs,αs) ds+Mtγ,\Sigma^\gamma_t=\Sigma^\gamma_0+\int_{[0,t]}b^\gamma(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)\,ds+M^\gamma_t ,

and by clause 2 of the mean-field trajectory pair, Stγ=S0γ+∫0tbγ(Ss,As) dsS^\gamma_t=S^\gamma_0+\int_0^tb^\gamma(S_s,A_s)\,ds as a Riemann integral, which agrees with the Lebesgue integral over [0,t][0,t] by the toolkit (claim on continuous integrands; both are 00 for t=0t=0). Subtracting and multiplying by N\sqrt{N},

stγ=s0γ+∫[0,t]gsγ ds+N Mtγ,\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_t=\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_0+\int_{[0,t]}g^\gamma_s\,ds+\sqrt{N}\,M^\gamma_t ,

and by additivity of the Lebesgue integral (linearity) applied to the three integrable sections above,

∫[0,t]gsγ ds=∫[0,t](Esss+Bsas)γ ds+Rtγat ω.\int_{[0,t]}g^\gamma_s\,ds=\int_{[0,t]}\big(E_s\mathfrak{s}_s+\mathsf{B}_s\mathfrak{a}_s\big)^\gamma\,ds+\mathcal{R}^\gamma_t\qquad\text{at }\omega.

Substituting into the previous display gives the identity of clause (c) at every ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_*, hence almost surely.

Step 4: mean-square bound (clause (d)). Fix t∈(0,T]t\in(0,T] (the case t=0t=0 was disposed of in the preamble). At each ω∈Ωa\omega\in\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}} and each γ\gamma, the sections eγ(ω)e^\gamma(\omega) are measurable with ∫[0,t](esγ)2 ds<∞\int_{[0,t]}(e^\gamma_s)^2\,ds<\infty (Step 2), so claim 4 (Cauchy--Schwarz) of the interval toolkit, applied to the pair (1,eγ)(1,e^\gamma) on [0,t][0,t] — the constant function 11 being measurable with ∫[0,t]12 ds=t<∞\int_{[0,t]}1^2\,ds=t<\infty — gives (Rtγ)2=(∫[0,t]esγ ds)2≤t∫[0,t](esγ)2 ds(\mathcal{R}^\gamma_t)^2=\big(\int_{[0,t]}e^\gamma_s\,ds\big)^2\le t\int_{[0,t]}(e^\gamma_s)^2\,ds; summing over γ\gamma (linearity of the Lebesgue integral), ∣Rt∣2≤t∫[0,t]∣es∣2 ds|\mathcal{R}_t|^2\le t\int_{[0,t]}|e_s|^2\,ds on Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}, while ∣Rt∣2=0|\mathcal{R}_t|^2=0 off Ωa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}. By Step 1, ∣es∣2≤ws|e_s|^2\le w_s at every point, wsw_s being the square of the minimum of the two bounds of clause (a), so, pointwise on Ω\Omega,

∣Rt∣2 ≤ t 1Ωa∫[0,t]ws ds ≤ t∫[0,t]1Ω0 ws ds,|\mathcal{R}_t|^2\ \le\ t\,\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}}\int_{[0,t]}w_s\,ds\ \le\ t\int_{[0,t]}\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\,w_s\,ds ,

using Ωa⊆Ω0\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}}\subseteq\Omega_0. The function ∣Rt∣2|\mathcal{R}_t|^2 is a random variable (a continuous function of the random variables Rtγ\mathcal{R}^\gamma_t of Step 2), so taking expectations and using monotonicity and the Tonelli theorem for the product-measurable map 1Ω0w\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}w of Step 2,

E[∣Rt∣2] ≤ t∫[0,t]E[1Ω0 ws] ds = t∫[0,t]E[ws] ds,\mathbb{E}\big[|\mathcal{R}_t|^2\big]\ \le\ t\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}\big[\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\,w_s\big]\,ds\ =\ t\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}\big[w_s\big]\,ds ,

the last equality because wsw_s is a random variable (a continuous function of the components of zsz_s, again by the composition lemma) and expectations are unchanged by the 1Ω0\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0} modification, Ω0\Omega_0 having probability 11, as recorded in clause (a) of the a priori second-moment bound and in clause (d) of the statement. This is the first display of clause (d). The second display follows from ws≤9 l3K2(l+m)24N ∣zs∣4w_s\le\frac{9\,l^3K^2(l+m)^2}{4N}\,|z_s|^4 pointwise (the minimum is at most its first argument) by monotonicity of the expectation and of the integral, the map s↦E[∣zs∣4]s\mapsto\mathbb{E}[|z_s|^4] being measurable as recorded in the statement.\ □\square

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…