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 (gs, zs, Λ, Es, Bs, es, Ωa, Rt), write xs=(Ss,As) and ys=(Σs,αs) as points of Rl+m under the coordinate identification of the extension definition, so that ys−xs=zs/N pointwise, and write pˉ=(1/l,…,1/l), a point of the probability simplexΔl. All integrals over [0,t] below are 0 for t=0; at t=0 the identity of clause (c) reduces to M0=0, which is the t=0 case of the definition of Mγ in clause (b) of the martingale decomposition, and both displays of clause (d) read 0≤0. Accordingly, wherever an integral over [0,t] is manipulated we take t>0.
Step 1: pointwise bounds (clause (a)). Fix (s,ω)∈[0,T]×Ω. By the definition of the controlled N-agent dynamics, the state processes take values in {1,…,l} at every point, so the empirical state measure Σs(ω) lies in Δl; and Ss∈Δl, the mean-field trajectory pair having S:[0,T]→Δl. Hence xs and ys lie in Δl×Rm, and so does every point of the segment {xs+τ(ys−xs):τ∈[0,1]}: the convex combination (1−τ)Ss+τΣs(ω) of two points of the simplex has nonnegative entries with sum (1−τ)+τ=1, and the last m coordinates are unconstrained. By clause (i) of the regularity of the extended aggregate state drift, bˉ agrees with b on Δl×Rm, and each bˉγ is a C1 map on the open set U×Rm whose partial derivatives are again C1; also Δl×Rm⊆U×Rm. Therefore the Taylor lemma applies to f=bˉγ with n=l+m, x=xs, y=ys, h=zs(ω)/N. By the definitions of Es and Bs,
Part (ii) of the Taylor lemma with M2=3lK — a bound for all second-order partials of bˉγ on Δl×Rm, hence on the segment, by clause (iii) of the drift regularity lemma — gives
∣esγ∣≤N⋅21(l+m)3lKN∣zs∣2=2N3lK(l+m)∣zs∣2,
and ∣es∣≤lmaxγ∣esγ∣ (the elementary inequality ∑γ(esγ)2≤lmaxγ(esγ)2) yields the first bound of clause (a). Part (i) of the Taylor lemma with M1=l(B+K) (clause (ii) of the drift regularity lemma) gives ∣gsγ∣≤N⋅l+ml(B+K)∣zs∣/N, so ∣gs∣≤ll+ml(B+K)∣zs∣=Λ∣zs∣ by the same elementary inequality; and ∣(Esss+Bsas)γ∣≤∑i=1l+m∣∂ibˉγ(xs)∣∣zsi∣≤l(B+K)l+m∣zs∣, by clause (ii) and the elementary inequality ∑i=1l+m∣zsi∣≤l+m∣zs∣ (an instance of 2λμ≤λ2+μ2 summed over indices), so ∣Esss+Bsas∣≤Λ∣zs∣. The triangle inequality (the Euclidean distance is a metric) gives ∣es∣≤∣gs∣+∣Esss+Bsas∣≤2Λ∣zs∣. No use of the hypothesis A<∞ was made.
Step 2: measurability and the residual process (clause (b)). Define Σ~sγ=1Ω0Σsγ+(1−1Ω0)pˉγ and α~sj=1Ω0αsj, so that Σ~s(ω)∈Δl at every point. The maps (s,ω)↦1Ω0(ω)Σsγ(ω) and (s,ω)↦1Ω0(ω)αsj(ω) are measurable with respect to the product σ-algebra of the trace Borel σ-algebra on [0,T] and F, by clauses (b) and (c) of the joint measurability of the state and control; and (s,ω)↦1Ω0(ω) is product-measurable as the indicator of the measurable rectangle [0,T]×Ω0 (Ω0∈F by the controlled-dynamics definition, and rectangles generate the product σ-algebra). Hence Σ~γ and α~j are product-measurable. The function
is jointly continuous, hence sequentially continuous, on [0,T]×U×Rm⊆R1+l+m, since bˉγ and its partial derivatives are continuous (clause (i) of the drift regularity lemma) and the trajectory pair(S,A) is continuous; and, using bˉ=b on Δl×Rm (Step 1), 1Ω0esγ=1Ω0⋅Fγ(s,Σ~s,α~s) at every point of [0,T]×Ω, the arguments lying in the domain of Fγ everywhere since Σ~s∈Δl⊆U. By measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable Euclidean maps — applied to Fγ composed with the measurable maps (s,ω)↦s, Σ~γ, α~j, and once more to the product with 1Ω0 — each (s,ω)↦1Ω0esγ is product-measurable. The same argument makes (s,ω)↦1Ω0∣ss∣, (s,ω)↦1Ω0∣as∣, their squares, and, for Step 4, (s,ω)↦1Ω0ws with ws=min(2N3llK(l+m)∣zs∣2,2Λ∣zs∣)2 and (s,ω)↦1Ω0∣zs∣4, product-measurable.
By the Tonelli theorem (the trace Lebesgue measure of the toolkit and P being finite, hence σ-finite, measures), Φa(ω)=∫[0,T]1Ω0(ω)∣as(ω)∣2ds defines a measurable [0,∞]-valued function of ω with E[Φa]=A (the expectations defining A are unchanged by the 1Ω0 modification because Ω0 has probability 1, as recorded in clause (a) of the a priori second-moment bound); for ω∈Ω0 its defining section is s↦∣as(ω)∣2, so Ωa=Ω0∩{ω:Φa(ω)<∞} is an event. For every natural numbern one has Φa≥n1{Φa=∞} pointwise, so monotonicity and the integral of a simple function give A≥nP(Φa=∞), forcing P(Φa=∞)=0; as Ω0 has probability 1, so does Ωa.
Fix ω∈Ωa and t∈(0,T]. The sections s↦esγ(ω) are measurable on [0,T]: they are the differences of the sections at ω of the product-measurable maps (1Ω0eγ)+ and (1Ω0eγ)− (product-measurable as continuous functions of 1Ω0eγ; sections of product-measurable [0,∞]-valued maps are measurable, as in the Tonelli theorem), and 1Ω0(ω)=1; the same argument gives measurability of the sections at ω of 1Ω0∣ss∣, 1Ω0∣as∣, and their squares. By Step 1 and the estimates ∣ss(ω)∣≤2N (points of Δl have Euclidean norm at most 1, their entries lying in [0,1] with sum 1, so that ∑γ(Σγ)2≤∑γΣγ=1, and ∣Σs−Ss∣≤∣Σs∣+∣Ss∣≤2 by the triangle inequality, the Euclidean distance being a metric), ∣zs∣≤∣ss∣+∣as∣ (the square of the left side being the sum of the squares of the two blocks), and ∣as∣≤21(1+∣as∣2),
both by monotonicity (using ∣esγ∣2≤∣es∣2≤4Λ2∣zs∣2=4Λ2(∣ss∣2+∣as∣2)); so each section is Lebesgue integrable over [0,t], with square-integrable modulus, and Rt is defined as in the statement. Each Rtγ is a random variable: by the Tonelli theorem the integrals over [0,t] of (1Ω0eγ)± define measurable [0,∞]-valued functions of ω, finite on Ωa by the first bound just displayed, and Rtγ is the difference of the functions equal to them on Ωa and to 0 off Ωa.
Step 3: integral form (clause (c)). Let Ω∗ be the intersection of Ωa with the almost-sure event of clause (a) of the martingale decomposition; Ω∗ is an event of probability 1, being an intersection of two events of probability 1. Fix ω∈Ω∗, γ∈{1,…,l}, and t∈[0,T]. First, the relevant sections are measurable and integrable over [0,t] at ω: the path s↦bγ(Σs,αs) is measurable and bounded in absolute value by 2(l−1)B by clause (a) of the martingale decomposition; the function s↦bγ(Ss,As) 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)B as well, since by the definition of the aggregate state driftbγ(Σ,α) is a sum over the l−1 states σ=γ of terms Σσβ(σ,γ,Σ,α)−Σγβ(γ,σ,Σ,α) with 0≤Σσ,Σγ≤1 on Δl and ∣β∣≤B by the rate bound of the transition-rate family, so that ∣bγ∣≤2(l−1)B at every point of Δl×Rm; hence s↦gsγ(ω) is measurable and bounded by 4(l−1)BN, and integrable over [0,t]; the section s↦esγ(ω) is measurable and integrable by Step 2; and the section s↦(Esss+Bsas)γ(ω)=gsγ(ω)−esγ(ω) is measurable as their difference and dominated by Λ∣zs(ω)∣, integrable over [0,t] as in Step 2. Now, by the definition of Mγ in clause (b) of the martingale decomposition,
Σtγ=Σ0γ+∫[0,t]bγ(Σs,αs)ds+Mtγ,
and by clause 2 of the mean-field trajectory pair, Stγ=S0γ+∫0tbγ(Ss,As)ds as a Riemann integral, which agrees with the Lebesgue integral over [0,t] by the toolkit (claim on continuous integrands; both are 0 for t=0). Subtracting and multiplying by N,
stγ=s0γ+∫[0,t]gsγds+NMtγ,
and by additivity of the Lebesgue integral (linearity) applied to the three integrable sections above,
∫[0,t]gsγds=∫[0,t](Esss+Bsas)γds+Rtγat ω.
Substituting into the previous display gives the identity of clause (c) at every ω∈Ω∗, hence almost surely.
Step 4: mean-square bound (clause (d)). Fix t∈(0,T] (the case t=0 was disposed of in the preamble). At each ω∈Ωa and each γ, the sections eγ(ω) are measurable with ∫[0,t](esγ)2ds<∞ (Step 2), so claim 4 (Cauchy--Schwarz) of the interval toolkit, applied to the pair (1,eγ) on [0,t] — the constant function 1 being measurable with ∫[0,t]12ds=t<∞ — gives (Rtγ)2=(∫[0,t]esγds)2≤t∫[0,t](esγ)2ds; summing over γ (linearity of the Lebesgue integral), ∣Rt∣2≤t∫[0,t]∣es∣2ds on Ωa, while ∣Rt∣2=0 off Ωa. By Step 1, ∣es∣2≤ws at every point, ws being the square of the minimum of the two bounds of clause (a), so, pointwise on Ω,
∣Rt∣2≤t1Ωa∫[0,t]wsds≤t∫[0,t]1Ω0wsds,
using Ωa⊆Ω0. The function ∣Rt∣2 is a random variable (a continuous function of the random variables Rtγ of Step 2), so taking expectations and using monotonicity and the Tonelli theorem for the product-measurable map 1Ω0w of Step 2,
E[∣Rt∣2]≤t∫[0,t]E[1Ω0ws]ds=t∫[0,t]E[ws]ds,
the last equality because ws is a random variable (a continuous function of the components of zs, again by the composition lemma) and expectations are unchanged by the 1Ω0 modification, Ω0 having probability 1, 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≤4N9l3K2(l+m)2∣zs∣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] being measurable as recorded in the statement.\ □