Reason: First published version. Proves that under uniqueness of the optimal mean-field trajectory the deviation functional is the sup-distance to that trajectory, that the uniform deviation is a random variable agreeing with the supremum over the horizon on the regular event, and the quantitative bound giving convergence in probability.
Step 1. Proof of claim 1. By claim 1 of the optimal-set structure lemma the set Mσ∗ is nonempty. By the definition of the optimal trajectories the set Sσ∗ consists exactly of the flows S(σ,ζ) with ζ∈Mσ∗; since Sσ∗={S∗}, every such flow equals S∗. In particular, fixing ζ0∈Mσ∗ we have S∗=S(σ,ζ0), so St∗∈Δl for every t∈[0,T] and ∣St∗−Sr∗∣≤Kb∣t−r∣ for all r,t∈[0,T], by claim 2 of the flow stability lemma.
Let x0∈Δl and ξ∈UA. By claim 2 of the optimal-set structure lemma the supremum
Ψ(x0,ξ,ζ)=sup{St(x0,ξ)−St(σ,ζ):t∈[0,T]}
exists for every ζ∈UA, and there is ζ†∈Mσ∗ with D(x0,ξ)=Ψ(x0,ξ,ζ†). By the first part S(σ,ζ†)=S∗, so
D(x0,ξ)=sup{St(x0,ξ)−St∗:t∈[0,T]},
and in particular this supremum exists. This proves claim 1.
Step 2. Proof of claim 2. Fix natural numbers N and n.
Measurability of the sections. Let t∈[0,T]. By the definition of a solution of the controlled N-agent dynamics the state processes are families of random variables, so σti is measurable for every i; hence the occupation indicator ηti,γ, which is the function equal to 1 on the event where σti takes the value γ and to 0 elsewhere, is a random variable, and so is the component ΣtN,γ, being the sum of the N indicators ηti,γ divided by N: this follows from the lemma on sequentially continuous functions of measurable Euclidean maps, applied to the sequentially continuous map that sends a point of RN to the sum of its coordinates divided by N. Also, as recorded in that definition, ΣtN(ω) lies in Δl for every ω, because each agent occupies exactly one state. Applying the same lemma to the sequentially continuous map sending x∈Δl to ∣x−St∗∣ shows that ω↦∣ΣtN(ω)−St∗∣ is a random variable.
The maps gnN. The set Qn is finite and nonempty, and 1Ω∗N is a random variable because Ω∗N∈FN. The map gnN is obtained from the finitely many random variables ω↦∣ΣtN(ω)−St∗∣ with t∈Qn, together with 1Ω∗N, by forming the maximum of the first group and multiplying by the last; both operations are given by sequentially continuous maps on the corresponding Euclidean space, so gnN is a random variable by the same lemma. For every t∈[0,T] and every ω, both ΣtN(ω) and St∗ lie in Δl and therefore have Euclidean norm at most 1 by claim 1 of the compactness lemma, so claims 5 and 6 of the norm lemma give ∣ΣtN(ω)−St∗∣≤2. Hence 0≤gnN(ω)≤2 for every ω.
The map WN. For every ω the set {gnN(ω):n∈N} is nonempty and bounded above by 2, so its least upper bound exists by Least Upper Bound Property of the Real Numbers; thus WN(ω) is well defined, and 0≤g1N(ω)≤WN(ω)≤2, the last inequality because 2 is an upper bound and the supremum is the least one. The family (gnN)n∈N consists of random variables bounded in absolute value by 2, so WN is a random variable by claim 1 of the measurable-limits toolkit.
Identification on Ω∗N. Let ω∈Ω∗N and put Φ(t)=∣ΣtN(ω)−St∗∣ for t∈[0,T]; then 0≤Φ≤2 and, since 1Ω∗N(ω)=1, we have gnN(ω)=max{Φ(t):t∈Qn} for every n. The set {Φ(t):t∈[0,T]} is nonempty and bounded above by 2, so its least upper bound Φ∗ exists.
Each gnN(ω) equals Φ(t) for some t∈Qn⊆[0,T], hence gnN(ω)≤Φ∗; as Φ∗ is then an upper bound of the set whose least upper bound is WN(ω), we get WN(ω)≤Φ∗.
Conversely let t∈[0,T]. If t=T then t∈Q1, so Φ(t)≤g1N(ω)≤WN(ω). Suppose t<T. For each n the set of elements of Qn that are at least t is nonempty, since it contains T, and finite, so it has a least element tn. If tn=0 then t≤0, so t=0=tn; otherwise tn=(j/2n)T with j∈{1,…,2n}, the number ((j−1)/2n)T also lies in Qn and is smaller than t by minimality of tn, whence tn−t<tn−((j−1)/2n)T=T/2n. In either case 0≤tn−t≤T/2n. An easy induction gives n≤2n for every natural number n, so T/2n≤T/n; the sequence (1/n)n∈N converges to 0 by claim 3 of the Archimedean property of the real numbers, hence so does (T/n)n∈N by claim 3 of the arithmetic of limits of real sequences, and therefore (tn)n∈N converges to t by claim 3 of the order properties of limits of real sequences.
Since t∈[0,T) and ω∈Ω∗N, the path s↦ΣsN,γ(ω) is right-continuous at t for every γ, by the martingale bound for the empirical state measure; as t≤tn for every n and (tn) converges to t, the real sequence (ΣtnN,γ(ω))n∈N converges to ΣtN,γ(ω) for every γ. Writing x(n)=ΣtnN(ω)−ΣtN(ω), claim 1 of the norm lemma together with the definition of the dot product gives that ∣x(n)∣2 is the sum of the squares of the coordinates of x(n), each of which converges to 0; so (∣x(n)∣2)n∈N converges to 0 by claims 1 and 2 of the arithmetic of limits. Consequently (∣x(n)∣)n∈N converges to 0: given a real ε>0, we have ∣x(n)∣2<ε2 for all large n, while ε≤∣x(n)∣ would give ε2≤∣x(n)∣2 by two applications of claim 10 of the order-arithmetic lemma in the nonstrict form obtained by adjoining the case of equality. Finally ∣Stn∗−St∗∣≤Kb∣tn−t∣, and the right-hand side converges to 0, so (∣Stn∗−St∗∣)n∈N converges to 0 by claim 3 of the order properties of limits.
Now, for every n, two applications of claim 6 of the norm lemma, together with claim 5 there, give
where βn=∣x(n)∣+∣Stn∗−St∗∣ and where the middle term was bounded by WN(ω) because tn∈Qn gives Φ(tn)≤gnN(ω)≤WN(ω). The sequence (βn)n∈N converges to 0 by claim 1 of the arithmetic of limits. If WN(ω)<Φ(t), then c=Φ(t)−WN(ω) would be positive and c≤βn for every n, contradicting the convergence of (βn) to 0. Hence Φ(t)≤WN(ω) for every t∈[0,T], so WN(ω) is an upper bound of {Φ(t):t∈[0,T]} and therefore Φ∗≤WN(ω). Combining the two inequalities, WN(ω)=Φ∗, which is the last assertion of claim 2.
Step 3. Proof of claim 3. Fix a real ε>0 and a natural number N.
the last term because by claim 1 the number DN(ω)=D(Σ0N(ω),α^N(ω)) is the supremum of the numbers ∣Stω−St∗∣ over t∈[0,T], hence an upper bound of each of them. Taking the least upper bound over t∈[0,T] and using claim 2 we get
WN(ω)≤eΛbTMN(ω)+DN(ω)for every ω∈Ω∗N.
Splitting the event. Put FN={ω∈ΩN:ε/2≤eΛbTMN(ω)} and GN={ω∈ΩN:ε/2≤DN(ω)}, which are events because MN is a random variable by the martingale bound and DN is one by claim 4 of the convergence theorem for the optimal N-agent value. If ω∈Ω∗N satisfies ε≤WN(ω) but lies in neither FN nor GN, then adding the two strict inequalities by claim 3 of the order-arithmetic lemma and using claim 8 there, which gives ε/2+ε/2=ε, yields eΛbTMN(ω)+DN(ω)<ε≤WN(ω), contradicting the pathwise bound. Hence
{ω∈ΩN:ε≤WN(ω)}⊆FN∪GN∪(ΩN∖Ω∗N).
Since PN(Ω∗N)=1, claim 3 of the basic properties of a measure gives PN(ΩN∖Ω∗N)=0; so claim 2 (monotonicity) and claim 4 (countable subadditivity) there, the latter applied to the sequence whose first three terms are FN, GN and ΩN∖Ω∗N and all of whose further terms are empty, give
PN({ε≤WN})≤PN(FN)+PN(GN).
Estimating the martingale term. Put a=ε2/(4e2ΛbT), a positive real number. If ω∈FN then, multiplying by the positive number e−ΛbT (claim 7 of the order-arithmetic lemma for its positivity and claim 10 in the nonstrict form for the multiplication), ε/(2eΛbT)≤MN(ω), and two further applications of claim 10, both sides being nonnegative, give a≤(MN(ω))2. Hence FN is contained in the event where a≤(MN)2, and monotonicity together with Markov's inequality of the lemma on Markov's and Chebyshev's inequalities, applied to the nonnegative random variable (MN)2 and the positive number a, gives
Together with the previous display this proves the inequality asserted in claim 3.
Passing to the limit. The sequence (1/N)N∈N converges to 0 by claim 3 of the Archimedean property, so the sequence with N-th term 32l(l−1)BTe2ΛbT/(Nε2) converges to 0 by claim 3 of the arithmetic of limits. The sequence (PN(GN))N∈N converges to 0 by claim 4 of the convergence theorem for the optimal N-agent value, applied with the positive real number ε/2. Their sum converges to 0 by claim 1 of the arithmetic of limits, and since 0≤PN({ε≤WN}) is bounded above by that sum for every N, claim 3 of the order properties of limits gives that (PN({ε≤WN}))N∈N converges to 0. This completes the proof of claim 3 and of the corollary.