TheoremBase

Proof

Throughout, adopt the notation of the statement, and 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. Products with an infinite factor are read with the convention 0⋅∞=00\cdot\infty=0. If cΘ=0c_\Theta=0 then B=K=0B=K=0, the rate bound forces β≡0\beta\equiv0, hence Θ≡0\Theta\equiv0 by its entry formulas, every left-hand side of the statement vanishes, and all three clauses hold; assume cΘ>0c_\Theta>0 below.

Step 1: pointwise bound (clause (a)). Fix ω∈Ω\omega\in\Omega, s∈[0,T]s\in[0,T], and γ,δ∈{1,…,l}\gamma,\delta\in\{1,\dots,l\}. 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 the probability simplex 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. Moreover αs(ω)∈A\alpha_s(\omega)\in\mathcal{A} at every point of Ω\Omega — the control process of a solution takes values in A\mathcal{A} by that definition's solution data, the policy being A\mathcal{A}-valued — and As∈AA_s\in\mathcal{A} (the trajectory pair having A:[0,T]→AA:[0,T]\to\mathcal{A}). Hence xsx_s and ysy_s lie in Δl×A⊆Δl×V\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A}\subseteq\Delta^l\times V, and every point of the segment {xs+τ(ys−xs):τ∈[0,1]}\{x_s+\tau(y_s-x_s):\tau\in[0,1]\} lies in Δl×V\Delta^l\times V: 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 control coordinates form a convex combination of the two points AsA_s and αs(ω)\alpha_s(\omega) of A⊆V\mathcal{A}\subseteq V, the set VV being convex by the extension definition. Fix an ordered pair (σ,γ′)(\sigma,\gamma') with σ≠γ′\sigma\neq\gamma'. By clause 1 of the extension definition, βˉ(σ,γ′,⋅,⋅)\bar{\beta}(\sigma,\gamma',\cdot,\cdot) agrees with β(σ,γ′,⋅,⋅)\beta(\sigma,\gamma',\cdot,\cdot) on Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A}, which contains xsx_s and ysy_s; by clause 2 it is a C1C^1 map on the open set U×V⊇Δl×VU\times V\supseteq\Delta^l\times V; and by clause 3, ∣∂iβˉ(σ,γ′,x)∣≤K|\partial_i\bar{\beta}(\sigma,\gamma',x)|\le K for all ii and all x∈U×Vx\in U\times V, in particular on the segment. Part (i) of the Taylor lemma, with n=l+mn=l+m and M1=KM_1=K, therefore gives

∣β(σ,γ′,ys)−β(σ,γ′,xs)∣ ≤ l+m  K ∣ys−xs∣.\big|\beta(\sigma,\gamma',y_s)-\beta(\sigma,\gamma',x_s)\big|\ \le\ \sqrt{l+m}\;K\,|y_s-x_s| .

Moreover ∣Σsσ−Ssσ∣≤∣ys−xs∣|\Sigma^\sigma_s-S^\sigma_s|\le|y_s-x_s|, a single coordinate of the difference being at most its Euclidean norm, and, by the transition-rate family definition, 0≤β(σ,γ′,⋅,⋅)≤B0\le\beta(\sigma,\gamma',\cdot,\cdot)\le B, while 0≤Ssσ≤10\le S^\sigma_s\le1 on the simplex. Hence, for each ordered pair (σ,γ′)(\sigma,\gamma') with σ≠γ′\sigma\neq\gamma',

∣Σsσ β(σ,γ′,ys)−Ssσ β(σ,γ′,xs)∣ ≤ ∣Σsσ−Ssσ∣ β(σ,γ′,ys)+Ssσ ∣β(σ,γ′,ys)−β(σ,γ′,xs)∣ ≤ (B+Kl+m) ∣ys−xs∣,\big|\Sigma^\sigma_s\,\beta(\sigma,\gamma',y_s)-S^\sigma_s\,\beta(\sigma,\gamma',x_s)\big|\ \le\ \big|\Sigma^\sigma_s-S^\sigma_s\big|\,\beta(\sigma,\gamma',y_s)+S^\sigma_s\,\big|\beta(\sigma,\gamma',y_s)-\beta(\sigma,\gamma',x_s)\big|\ \le\ \big(B+K\sqrt{l+m}\big)\,|y_s-x_s| ,

the first step by the triangle inequality (the Euclidean distance is a metric, applied in R\mathbb{R}) after adding and subtracting Ssσ β(σ,γ′,ys)S^\sigma_s\,\beta(\sigma,\gamma',y_s). By the entry formulas of the aggregate fluctuation covariance, the entry Θγγ\Theta^{\gamma\gamma} is a sum of 2(l−1)2(l-1) terms of this form (the pairs (σ,γ)(\sigma,\gamma) and (γ,σ)(\gamma,\sigma) for σ≠γ\sigma\neq\gamma), and an off-diagonal entry Θγδ\Theta^{\gamma\delta} (γ≠δ\gamma\neq\delta) is, up to sign, a sum of 22 such terms; since l≥2l\ge2, in either case the triangle inequality gives

∣Θγδ(ys)−Θγδ(xs)∣ ≤ 2 (l−1) (B+Kl+m) ∣ys−xs∣ = cΘ ∣zs∣N,\big|\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(y_s)-\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(x_s)\big|\ \le\ 2\,(l-1)\,\big(B+K\sqrt{l+m}\big)\,|y_s-x_s|\ =\ c_\Theta\,\frac{|z_s|}{\sqrt{N}} ,

which is clause (a).

Step 2: mean bound (clause (b)). Fix s∈[0,T]s\in[0,T] and γ,δ\gamma,\delta. The map Θγδ(Σs,αs)\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s) is a random variable: the entry Θγδ\Theta^{\gamma\delta} is a finite sum of products of coordinate maps with members of the rate family, hence sequentially continuous on Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} by the joint-continuity clause of the transition-rate family definition, and measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable Euclidean maps applies to the components of (Σs,αs)(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s), which are random variables by the controlled-dynamics definition (as in the proof of the martingale decomposition). By clause (a) of the weighted second-moment evolution lemma, applied with the constant matrix family Zt=0Z_t=0 (whose densities z˙γδ≡0\dot{z}^{\gamma\delta}\equiv0 are continuous), E[Θγδ(Σs,αs)]\mathbb{E}[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)] is finite, and it is bounded and measurable as a function of ss. Subtracting the constant Θγδ(Ss,As)\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_s,A_s), whose expectation is itself, and using linearity of the expectation and the bound ∣E[X]∣≤E[∣X∣]|\mathbb{E}[X]|\le\mathbb{E}[|X|] from the integrable-case clause there,

∣E[Θγδ(Σs,αs)]−Θγδ(Ss,As)∣ ≤ E[∣Θγδ(Σs,αs)−Θγδ(Ss,As)∣] ≤ cΘN E[∣zs∣],\big|\mathbb{E}\big[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)\big]-\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_s,A_s)\big|\ \le\ \mathbb{E}\Big[\big|\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)-\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_s,A_s)\big|\Big]\ \le\ \frac{c_\Theta}{\sqrt{N}}\,\mathbb{E}\big[|z_s|\big],

the last step by clause (a) and monotonicity, ∣zs∣|z_s| being a random variable — a continuous function of the components of ss\mathfrak{s}_s and as\mathfrak{a}_s, which are random variables by the controlled-dynamics definition and the trajectory pair. If E[∣ss∣2]+E[∣as∣2]=∞\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2]+\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2]=\infty, the right-hand side of clause (b) is ∞\infty (cΘ>0c_\Theta>0) and the clause is trivial. Otherwise ∣zs∣|z_s| is square-integrable, since E[∣zs∣2]=E[∣ss∣2]+E[∣as∣2]\mathbb{E}[|z_s|^2]=\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2]+\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2] by the pointwise identity ∣zs∣2=∣ss∣2+∣as∣2|z_s|^2=|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2+|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2 and additivity; the constant 11 is square-integrable with E[12]=1\mathbb{E}[1^2]=1, so the mean-square Cauchy--Schwarz inequality applied to the pair (∣zs∣,1)(|z_s|,1) gives E[∣zs∣]=E[∣zs∣⋅1]≤(E[∣zs∣2])1/2⋅1\mathbb{E}[|z_s|]=\mathbb{E}[|z_s|\cdot1]\le\big(\mathbb{E}[|z_s|^2]\big)^{1/2}\cdot1, the left side being nonnegative so the absolute value there is immaterial. This completes clause (b).

Step 3: integrated bound (clause (c)). The integrand s↦∣E[Θγδ(Σs,αs)]−Θγδ(Ss,As)∣s\mapsto\big|\mathbb{E}[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)]-\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_s,A_s)\big| is measurable, by measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps applied to the continuous function (u,v)↦∣u−v∣(u,v)\mapsto|u-v| and the two measurable functions of ss: the bounded measurable function of Step 2, and s↦Θγδ(Ss,As)s\mapsto\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_s,A_s), which is continuous and bounded, as both are recorded in clause (c) of the statement (boundedness via the extreme value theorem), and hence measurable (claim 3). Being measurable and bounded on [0,T][0,T], the integrand has a defined, finite Lebesgue integral, by monotonicity against a constant and claim 1 of the toolkit (λ([0,T])=T\lambda([0,T])=T). If A2=∞\mathcal{A}_2=\infty the right-hand side of clause (c) is ∞\infty (cΘ>0c_\Theta>0) and the claim is trivial; assume A2<∞\mathcal{A}_2<\infty, so that S+A2<∞\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{A}_2<\infty by S≤4NT\mathcal{S}\le4NT. Set ϕ(s)=(E[∣ss∣2]+E[∣as∣2])1/2∈[0,∞]\phi(s)=\big(\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2]+\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2]\big)^{1/2}\in[0,\infty]; the map s↦E[∣ss∣2]+E[∣as∣2]s\mapsto\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2]+\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_s|^2] is a measurable [0,∞][0,\infty]-valued function by clause (a) of the a priori second-moment bound and additivity, and ϕ\phi is measurable: for real a≥0a\ge0, {ϕ>a}={E[∣s⋅∣2]+E[∣a⋅∣2]>a2}\{\phi>a\}=\{\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_\cdot|^2]+\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_\cdot|^2]>a^2\} is measurable, for a<0a<0 the set {ϕ>a}\{\phi>a\} is all of [0,T][0,T], and the sets (a,∞](a,\infty] over real aa generate the σ\sigma-algebra of [0,∞][0,\infty] used for [0,∞][0,\infty]-valued measurability. Moreover ∫[0,T]ϕ2 ds=S+A2<∞\int_{[0,T]}\phi^2\,ds=\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{A}_2<\infty by additivity for nonnegative measurable integrands. Let D={s:ϕ(s)<∞}D=\{s:\phi(s)<\infty\} and ϕ0=ϕ 1D\phi_0=\phi\,\mathbf{1}_{D}, where 1D\mathbf{1}_D is the function equal to 11 on DD and 00 off DD; then ϕ0\phi_0 is measurable and real-valued, and DD is co-null: for every natural number nn, S+A2≥n2 λ([0,T]∖D)\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{A}_2\ge n^2\,\lambda([0,T]\setminus D) by monotonicity and the integral of a simple function (λ\lambda the trace Lebesgue measure), forcing λ([0,T]∖D)=0\lambda([0,T]\setminus D)=0. By claim 6 of the interval toolkit applied to the nonnegative measurable functions ϕ\phi and ϕ2\phi^2 with the co-null set DD,

∫[0,T]ϕ0 ds=∫[0,T]ϕ dsand∫[0,T]ϕ02 ds=∫[0,T]ϕ2 ds=S+A2,\int_{[0,T]}\phi_0\,ds=\int_{[0,T]}\phi\,ds\qquad\text{and}\qquad\int_{[0,T]}\phi_0^2\,ds=\int_{[0,T]}\phi^2\,ds=\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{A}_2,

since ϕ0=ϕ1D\phi_0=\phi\mathbf{1}_D and ϕ02=ϕ21D\phi_0^2=\phi^2\mathbf{1}_D pointwise under the convention 0⋅∞=00\cdot\infty=0. By clause (b), the integrand of clause (c) is at most cΘN ϕ(s)\tfrac{c_\Theta}{\sqrt{N}}\,\phi(s) at every ss, so by monotonicity and linearity (the constant cΘN\tfrac{c_\Theta}{\sqrt{N}} passing out of the integral), and then claim 4 (Cauchy--Schwarz) of the interval toolkit applied to the pair (1,ϕ0)(1,\phi_0) on [0,T][0,T] (both measurable with finite integrals of their squares, T>0T>0), whose squared form (∫[0,T]ϕ0 ds)2≤T∫[0,T]ϕ02 ds\big(\int_{[0,T]}\phi_0\,ds\big)^2\le T\int_{[0,T]}\phi_0^2\,ds passes to square roots because the nonnegative square root is nondecreasing,

∫[0,T]∣E[Θγδ(Σs,αs)]−Θγδ(Ss,As)∣ ds ≤ cΘN∫[0,T]ϕ0 ds ≤ cΘN T (∫[0,T]ϕ02 ds)1/2 = cΘN T (S+A2)1/2,\int_{[0,T]}\big|\mathbb{E}\big[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)\big]-\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_s,A_s)\big|\,ds\ \le\ \frac{c_\Theta}{\sqrt{N}}\int_{[0,T]}\phi_0\,ds\ \le\ \frac{c_\Theta}{\sqrt{N}}\,\sqrt{T}\,\Big(\int_{[0,T]}\phi_0^2\,ds\Big)^{1/2}\ =\ \frac{c_\Theta}{\sqrt{N}}\,\sqrt{T}\,\big(\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{A}_2\big)^{1/2},

where the first inequality also uses that ϕ\phi and ϕ0\phi_0 have equal integrals. This is clause (c).\ □\square

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…