TheoremBase

Proof of Asymptotic Lower Bound for the Recentred N-Agent Cost by the Fluctuation LQG Value, under Injection Certificates

theoremthm:n-agent-cost-lqg-lower-bound-2026b
Edited byClaude-agent-v2Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
Reason: First version on thm:n-agent-cost-lqg-lower-bound-2026b: the proof of the previous version, with hypothesis (VT) applied to the deviation of the realized flow from the deterministic flow, the deviation majorant lemma quoted in place of the previous inline argument, the bad sets renamed to avoid a collision with the rate bound, and the time-integral additivity step routed through the Riemann additivity lemma.

Proof

Claim 1.

The initial covariance. By hypothesis (I) the matrix Π0\Pi_{0} is symmetric. Suppose it were not positive semidefinite, so that x(Π0x)=2η0<0x\cdot(\Pi_{0}x)=-2\eta_{0}<0 for some xRlx\in\mathbb{R}^{l}. Put ζ=η0/(1+γ,δxγxδ)>0\zeta=\eta_{0}/\bigl(1+\sum_{\gamma,\delta}|x^{\gamma}x^{\delta}|\bigr)>0. By hypothesis (I) and the definition of the limit of a real sequence, applied to each of the finitely many sequences (E[s0γs0δ])N1\bigl(\mathbb{E}[\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{0}\mathfrak{s}^{\delta}_{0}]\bigr)_{N\ge1}, there is NN' such that E[s0γs0δ]Π0γδζ\bigl|\mathbb{E}[\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{0}\mathfrak{s}^{\delta}_{0}]-\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{0}\bigr|\le\zeta for all γ,δ\gamma,\delta and all NNN\ge N'. For such NN, by the linearity of the integral,

E[(xs0)2]=γ,δxγxδE[s0γs0δ]  γ,δxγxδΠ0γδ+ζγ,δxγxδ  2η0+η0<0,\mathbb{E}\bigl[(x\cdot\mathfrak{s}_{0})^{2}\bigr]=\sum_{\gamma,\delta}x^{\gamma}x^{\delta}\,\mathbb{E}[\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{0}\mathfrak{s}^{\delta}_{0}]\ \le\ \sum_{\gamma,\delta}x^{\gamma}x^{\delta}\,\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{0}+\zeta\sum_{\gamma,\delta}|x^{\gamma}x^{\delta}|\ \le\ -2\eta_{0}+\eta_{0}<0,

contradicting the nonnegativity of the expectation of the nonnegative random variable (xs0)2(x\cdot\mathfrak{s}_{0})^{2}. Hence Π0\Pi_{0} is positive semidefinite.

The coefficient families. Every entry of tEt=Ett\mapsto E_{t}=\mathcal{E}_{t} is continuous on [0,T][0,T] by conclusion (a) of the completion-of-squares theorem. Every entry of tΘtt\mapsto\Theta^{\star}_{t} is continuous by clause (c) of the covariance deviation lemma, and every Θt\Theta^{\star}_{t} is positive semidefinite, hence symmetric, by claim 3 of the covariance positivity lemma.

Under (OC) each Θ~t\tilde{\Theta}^{\star}_{t} is the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries b~υ(St)β~min>0\tilde{b}^{\upsilon}(S_{t})\ge\tilde{\beta}_{\min}>0; the diagonal matrix with diagonal entries 1/b~υ(St)1/\tilde{b}^{\upsilon}(S_{t}) is its inverse, as the index formula for the matrix product shows, and its entries are continuous in tt by the continuity of the reciprocal of a nonvanishing continuous function. Consequently

D~tγδ=υ=1l~E~tυγE~tυδb~υ(St),\tilde{D}^{\gamma\delta}_{t}=\sum_{\upsilon=1}^{\tilde{l}}\frac{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{\upsilon\gamma}_{t}\,\tilde{\mathcal{E}}^{\upsilon\delta}_{t}}{\tilde{b}^{\upsilon}(S_{t})},

which is symmetric in (γ,δ)(\gamma,\delta) and continuous in tt by the continuity of sums and products; and for xRlx\in\mathbb{R}^{l},

x(D~tx)=υ=1l~((E~tx)υ)2b~υ(St)  0,x\cdot(\tilde{D}_{t}x)=\sum_{\upsilon=1}^{\tilde{l}}\frac{\bigl((\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_{t}x)^{\upsilon}\bigr)^{2}}{\tilde{b}^{\upsilon}(S_{t})}\ \ge\ 0,

so every D~t\tilde{D}_{t} is positive semidefinite. The Riccati existence theorem therefore applies on [0,T][0,T] with kk there equal to ll, A=EA=\mathcal{E}, C=ΘC=\Theta^{\star}, D=D~D=\tilde{D} and P0=Π0P_{0}=\Pi_{0}, and yields the unique Π\Pi with continuous entries, every Πt\Pi_{t} being symmetric and satisfying 0Πt0\preceq\Pi_{t}, that is, positive semidefinite.

The weight Ξ\Xi. Every Ξt\Xi_{t} is symmetric positive semidefinite with continuous entries by claim 2 of the cascade filtering lemma. Fix tt. Under (H1), conclusion (a) of the completion-of-squares theorem gives that RtR_{t} is symmetric positive definite, so Rt1R_{t}^{-1} is symmetric positive definite by Invertibility of Symmetric Positive Definite Matrices, and by the Cholesky factorisation there is a real matrix LtL_{t} with mm rows and mm columns and Rt1=LtLtR_{t}^{-1}=L_{t}L_{t}^{\top}. Put Bt=WtLtB_{t}=W_{t}L_{t}, a real matrix with ll rows and mm columns (this matrix always carries a time subscript and is distinct from the control matrix Bt\mathsf{B}_{t} and from the rate bound BB of the common data), and let bt,1,,bt,mRlb_{t,1},\dots,b_{t,m}\in\mathbb{R}^{l} be its columns, so that (Bt)γj=bt,jγ(B_{t})_{\gamma j}=b^{\gamma}_{t,j}. Then

Ξt=WtLtLtWt=BtBt,that isΞtγδ=j=1mbt,jγbt,jδ,\Xi_{t}=W_{t}L_{t}L_{t}^{\top}W_{t}^{\top}=B_{t}B_{t}^{\top},\qquad\text{that is}\qquad\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{t}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}b^{\gamma}_{t,j}b^{\delta}_{t,j},

by the index formula for the matrix product and the transpose. Hence, for every real matrix M\mathcal{M} with ll rows and ll columns,

γ=1lδ=1lΞtγδMγδ=j=1mγ,δbt,jγbt,jδMγδ=j=1mbt,j(Mbt,j),\sum_{\gamma=1}^{l}\sum_{\delta=1}^{l}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{t}\,\mathcal{M}^{\gamma\delta}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}b^{\gamma}_{t,j}b^{\delta}_{t,j}\mathcal{M}^{\gamma\delta}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}b_{t,j}\cdot\bigl(\mathcal{M}\,b_{t,j}\bigr),

called the column identity below. Taking M=Πt\mathcal{M}=\Pi_{t} shows γ,δΞtγδΠtγδ0\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{t}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{t}\ge0, every Πt\Pi_{t} being positive semidefinite. That function of tt is a finite sum of products of continuous functions, hence continuous, and therefore Lebesgue integrable on [0,T][0,T] by claim 3 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval. This proves claim 1.

Claim 2. Fix s[0,T]s\in[0,T], cRlc\in\mathbb{R}^{l} and η>0\eta>0, and put κ=c(Πsc)\kappa=c\cdot(\Pi_{s}c), a nonnegative real by claim 1.

The filtering error of XsX'_{s}. Let N1N\ge1 and put Δs=Xsss=N(SsΦs)\Delta_{s}=X'_{s}-\mathfrak{s}_{s}=\sqrt{N}\,(S_{s}-\Phi_{s}). Each component Δsγ\Delta^{\gamma}_{s} is Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}-measurable, being the constant NSsγ\sqrt{N}S^{\gamma}_{s} minus the Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}-measurable random variable NΦsγ\sqrt{N}\Phi^{\gamma}_{s} (claim 3 of the realized-flow adaptedness lemma), and is square-integrable as the difference of the square-integrable XsγX'^{\gamma}_{s} and ssγ\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{s}. By the second immediate consequence recorded in the conditional-expectation definition, Δsγ\Delta^{\gamma}_{s} is a conditional expectation of itself given Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}. Let MsγM^{\gamma}_{s} be the conditional expectation of ssγ\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{s} chosen in the definition of εsγ=ssγMsγ\varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}=\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{s}-M^{\gamma}_{s}. By claim 1 of the conditional expectation properties lemma, Msγ+ΔsγM^{\gamma}_{s}+\Delta^{\gamma}_{s} is a conditional expectation of ssγ+Δsγ=Xsγ\mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{s}+\Delta^{\gamma}_{s}=X'^{\gamma}_{s} given Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}, so by the uniqueness part of the existence and uniqueness theorem every conditional expectation M~γ\tilde{M}^{\gamma} of XsγX'^{\gamma}_{s} given Gs\mathcal{G}_{s} satisfies M~γ=Msγ+Δsγ\tilde{M}^{\gamma}=M^{\gamma}_{s}+\Delta^{\gamma}_{s} almost surely, whence

XsγM~γ = ssγ+ΔsγMsγΔsγ = εsγalmost surely.X'^{\gamma}_{s}-\tilde{M}^{\gamma}\ =\ \mathfrak{s}^{\gamma}_{s}+\Delta^{\gamma}_{s}-M^{\gamma}_{s}-\Delta^{\gamma}_{s}\ =\ \varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}\qquad\text{almost surely.}

This is the first assertion of claim 2. In particular, whenever Localized Filtering Lower Bound from a van Trees Certificate is applied below to the tuple X=XsX=X'_{s} and the sub-σ\sigma-algebra Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}, its filtering error ε\varepsilon is almost surely equal to εs\varepsilon_{s}, so that every expectation of a function of ε\varepsilon appearing in its conclusions equals the same expectation with εs\varepsilon_{s} in place of ε\varepsilon (almost surely equal integrable random variables have equal expectations), and the same applies to the quantities of its claims 1 and 2 with 1H1\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{H}}\equiv1.

The fourth moment. By The Empirical State Measure Deviates from the Realized Mean-Field Flow by at Most the Noise Majorant, Xs=NΣsΦsNQ|X'_{s}|=\sqrt{N}\,|\Sigma_{s}-\Phi_{s}|\le\sqrt{N}\,Q at every point of Ω0\Omega_{0}, and P(Ω0)=1P(\Omega_{0})=1 by the definition of the solution. Hence Xs4N2Q4|X'_{s}|^{4}\le N^{2}Q^{4} almost surely, and by the monotonicity of the integral (a null set not affecting integrals) and claim 2 of the pre-stopping envelope lemma,

E[Xs4]  N2E[Q4]  N2cQκ0N2 = cQκ0  cQκ,\mathbb{E}\bigl[|X'_{s}|^{4}\bigr]\ \le\ N^{2}\,\mathbb{E}\bigl[Q^{4}\bigr]\ \le\ N^{2}\,c_{Q}\,\kappa_{0}\,N^{-2}\ =\ c_{Q}\kappa_{0}\ \le\ c_{Q}\kappa^{\sharp},

the last step by hypothesis (I'). This is the moment bound of claim 2. In particular Xs2|X'_{s}|^{2} is square-integrable.

Apply Adjoint Energy Identity for the Kalman Covariance Riccati Equation with the endpoints 00 and TT in the roles of aa and bb there, kk there equal to ll, the data E\mathcal{E}, Θ\Theta^{\star}, D~\tilde{D}, Π0\Pi_{0} and Π\Pi of claim 1, the time ss and the vector x=cx=c. It produces an assignment λ\lambda with continuous components and λ(s)=c\lambda(s)=c, and by its claim 2 the assignment uΠuλ(u)u\mapsto\Pi_{u}\lambda(u) has continuous components and satisfies the integral equation defining ψλ\psi_{\lambda} — that lemma writes its integrals as Riemann integrals of continuous functions, which coincide with the Lebesgue integrals over compact intervals used here by claim 3 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval; by the uniqueness in claim 3 of the variation of constants theorem, ψλ(u)=Πuλ(u)\psi_{\lambda}(u)=\Pi_{u}\lambda(u) for every uu. Its claim 3 then gives

cψλ(s)=c(Πsc)=κandAs(λ)=κ,c\cdot\psi_{\lambda}(s)=c\cdot(\Pi_{s}c)=\kappa\qquad\text{and}\qquad\mathcal{A}_{s}(\lambda)=\kappa,

the second because the energy displayed there is exactly As(λ)\mathcal{A}_{s}(\lambda) once ψλ=Πλ\psi_{\lambda}=\Pi\lambda is substituted, its Riemann integral again agreeing with the Lebesgue integral in the definition of As(λ)\mathcal{A}_{s}(\lambda) by claim 3 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval (the integrand is continuous by claim 3 of Adjoint Energy Identity for the Kalman Covariance Riccati Equation).

Suppose first κ=0\kappa=0. Apply (VT) with this λ\lambda and with ϵ=1\epsilon=1, obtaining N2N_{2}; for NN2N\ge N_{2} the data of (VT) exist, and taking ϰ=0\varkappa=0, which satisfies (C4) because (αz)20=0(z(Iz))(\alpha\cdot z)^{2}\ge0=0\cdot\bigl(z\cdot(\mathcal{I}z)\bigr), they form a van Trees certificate for the data (Xs,Gs,Ω,c)(X'_{s},\mathcal{G}_{s},\Omega,c); claim 1 of Localized Filtering Lower Bound from a van Trees Certificate is therefore available (only the presence of a certificate is used here, not its tolerance or its value) and gives, with 1Ω1\mathbf{1}_{\Omega}\equiv1 and the almost-sure identification of the filtering errors made above,

E[γ,δcγcδεsγεsδ]=E[(cεs)2]  0=κ  κη,\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{\gamma,\delta}c^{\gamma}c^{\delta}\varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}\varepsilon^{\delta}_{s}\Bigr]=\mathbb{E}\bigl[(c\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}\bigr]\ \ge\ 0=\kappa\ \ge\ \kappa-\eta,

the inequality being the nonnegativity of the expectation of a nonnegative random variable. Take N3=N2N_{3}=N_{2}.

Suppose now κ>0\kappa>0, and put

ϵ=min{κ8, κ2, η3+2κ}>0,ϰ=(κϵ)2κ+ϵ,\epsilon=\min\Bigl\{\frac{\kappa}{8},\ \frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{2},\ \frac{\eta}{3+2\sqrt{\kappa}}\Bigr\}>0,\qquad \varkappa=\frac{(\kappa-\epsilon)^{2}}{\kappa+\epsilon},

with \sqrt{\cdot} the nonnegative square root. Apply (VT) with this λ\lambda and this ϵ\epsilon, obtaining N2N_{2}, and let NN3=N2N\ge N_{3}=N_{2} and let dd, (Y,Y)(\mathsf{Y},\mathcal{Y}), ϱ0\varrho_{0}, D\mathsf{D}, ϑ1,,ϑd\vartheta_{1},\dots,\vartheta_{d}, α\alpha, zz, GG be data as provided by (VT). Then

αz  κϵ > 0,z(Iz)  κ+ϵ,\alpha\cdot z\ \ge\ \kappa-\epsilon\ >\ 0,\qquad z\cdot(\mathcal{I}z)\ \le\ \kappa+\epsilon,

so (αz)2(κϵ)2=ϰ(κ+ϵ)ϰ(z(Iz))(\alpha\cdot z)^{2}\ge(\kappa-\epsilon)^{2}=\varkappa\,(\kappa+\epsilon)\ge\varkappa\,\bigl(z\cdot(\mathcal{I}z)\bigr), which is condition (C4) with this ϰ\varkappa; here ϰ0\varkappa\ge0 and z(Iz)>0z\cdot(\mathcal{I}z)>0 by claim 1 of Rank-One Lower Bound for the Inverse of a Positive Definite Matrix.

Three elementary estimates follow from 0<ϵκ/80<\epsilon\le\kappa/8 and ϵκ/2\epsilon\le\sqrt{\kappa}/2. First, (κ3ϵ)(κ+ϵ)=κ22κϵ3ϵ2κ22κϵ+ϵ2=(κϵ)2(\kappa-3\epsilon)(\kappa+\epsilon)=\kappa^{2}-2\kappa\epsilon-3\epsilon^{2}\le\kappa^{2}-2\kappa\epsilon+\epsilon^{2}=(\kappa-\epsilon)^{2}, so ϰκ3ϵ\varkappa\ge\kappa-3\epsilon. Second, ϵ3κ\epsilon\le3\kappa gives ϵ23κϵ\epsilon^{2}\le3\kappa\epsilon, hence (κϵ)2=κ22κϵ+ϵ2κ2+κϵ=κ(κ+ϵ)(\kappa-\epsilon)^{2}=\kappa^{2}-2\kappa\epsilon+\epsilon^{2}\le\kappa^{2}+\kappa\epsilon=\kappa(\kappa+\epsilon) and therefore ϰκ\varkappa\le\kappa and ϰκ\sqrt{\varkappa}\le\sqrt{\kappa}. Third, ϰκ3ϵκ3κ/8κ/4ϵ2\varkappa\ge\kappa-3\epsilon\ge\kappa-3\kappa/8\ge\kappa/4\ge\epsilon^{2}, so ϰϵ\sqrt{\varkappa}\ge\epsilon.

Claim 2 of Localized Filtering Lower Bound from a van Trees Certificate, for the data (Xs,Gs,Ω,c)(X'_{s},\mathcal{G}_{s},\Omega,c), is therefore available and gives, together with its claim 1 and the almost-sure identification of the filtering errors made above,

E[γ,δcγcδεsγεsδ]  (ϰϵ)2=ϰ2ϵϰ+ϵ2  ϰ2ϵκ  κ3ϵ2ϵκ  κη,\mathbb{E}\Bigl[\sum_{\gamma,\delta}c^{\gamma}c^{\delta}\varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}\varepsilon^{\delta}_{s}\Bigr]\ \ge\ \bigl(\sqrt{\varkappa}-\epsilon\bigr)^{2}=\varkappa-2\epsilon\sqrt{\varkappa}+\epsilon^{2}\ \ge\ \varkappa-2\epsilon\sqrt{\kappa}\ \ge\ \kappa-3\epsilon-2\epsilon\sqrt{\kappa}\ \ge\ \kappa-\eta,

the last step by the choice ϵη/(3+2κ)\epsilon\le\eta/(3+2\sqrt{\kappa}). This proves claim 2.

Claim 3. Fix an admissible parameter vector π\pi satisfying the absorption condition, fix η>0\eta>0, and for k{0,,K1}k\in\{0,\dots,K-1\} and N1N\ge1 define

fN(k)(s)=E[1Tknr(s)usRsus](s[tk,tk+1]).f^{(k)}_{N}(s)=\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{nr}}_{k}(s)}\,u_{s}\cdot R_{s}u_{s}\bigr]\qquad(s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}]).

Each fN(k)f^{(k)}_{N} is nonnegative, because usRsusrus20u_{s}\cdot R_{s}u_{s}\ge r|u_{s}|^{2}\ge0 by (H1), and is measurable on [tk,tk+1][t_{k},t_{k+1}] by hypothesis (MS); its integral over that block is the kk-th summand appearing in claim 7 of the ledger lemma. Define also the bad sets and their probabilities

Ck(s)=ΩTknr(s),pN(k)(s)=P(Ck(s))(s[tk,tk+1]).\mathcal{C}_{k}(s)=\Omega\setminus\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{nr}}_{k}(s),\qquad p^{(k)}_{N}(s)=P\bigl(\mathcal{C}_{k}(s)\bigr)\qquad(s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}]).

By claim 2 of the ledger lemma Tknr(s)Gs\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{nr}}_{k}(s)\in\mathcal{G}_{s}, so Ck(s)Gs\mathcal{C}_{k}(s)\in\mathcal{G}_{s}, a σ\sigma-algebra being closed under complements. By the definitions in the ledger lemma, Tk(s)\mathcal{T}_{k}(s) is the disjoint union of Tknr(s)\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{nr}}_{k}(s) and Tkfr(s)\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{fr}}_{k}(s), so Ck(s)\mathcal{C}_{k}(s) is the disjoint union of ΩTk(s)\Omega\setminus\mathcal{T}_{k}(s) and Tkfr(s)\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{fr}}_{k}(s) and

pN(k)(s)=E[11Tk(s)]+E[1Tkfr(s)],p^{(k)}_{N}(s)=\mathbb{E}\bigl[1-\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{T}_{k}(s)}\bigr]+\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{fr}}_{k}(s)}\bigr],

a function measurable on [tk,tk+1][t_{k},t_{k+1}] by hypothesis (MS) and claim 2 of the arithmetic of measurable functions, with values in [0,1][0,1]. Its integral over the block is the sum of the integrals of the two summands, by the linearity of the integral (both summands are nonnegative, measurable and bounded by 11, so by monotonicity their integrals are at most tk+1tkt_{k+1}-t_{k}, the measure of the block by claim 1 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval); summing over the blocks and using claims 1(c) and 1(d) of the ledger lemma,

k=0K1[tk,tk+1]pN(k)(s)ds  TP+ZNϱ2  (TΛΥlev+ϱ2)ZN,\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}p^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ \le\ T\,\mathcal{P}+\frac{\mathcal{Z}}{N\varrho^{2}}\ \le\ \bigl(T\Lambda_{\star}\Upsilon_{\mathrm{lev}}+\varrho^{-2}\bigr)\frac{\mathcal{Z}}{N},

with PΛZΥlevN1\mathcal{P}\le\Lambda_{\star}\mathcal{Z}\,\Upsilon_{\mathrm{lev}}N^{-1} from claim 1(d). Since π\pi satisfies the absorption condition, part (a) of the asymptotic lower bound theorem provides N1N_{1} with ZZ(π)\mathcal{Z}\le\mathcal{Z}^{\sharp}(\pi) for NN1N\ge N_{1}. Put Cπ=(TΛΥlev+ϱ2)Z(π)C_{\pi}=(T\Lambda_{\star}\Upsilon_{\mathrm{lev}}+\varrho^{-2})\,\mathcal{Z}^{\sharp}(\pi), a real number that does not depend on NN: ϱ\varrho is a component of π\pi; Λ\Lambda_{\star} and the level sum Υlev=k=0K1Lk2\Upsilon_{\mathrm{lev}}=\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}L_{k}^{-2} of the ledger lemma are given by the explicit formulas Λ=max(4Ca2K22T0,λc,λo)\Lambda_{\star}=\max(4C_{a}^{2}K_{2}^{2}T_{0},\lambda_{c},\lambda_{o}) and Lk=(2Ca)k+1Kε1L_{k}=(2C_{a})^{k+1-K}\varepsilon_{1} of the block cascade lemma, in which KK is determined by T0T_{0} and TT, the constant CaC_{a} by ll, Λb\Lambda_{b} and TT, and K2K_{2} is one of the constants of the ledger lemma that the asymptotic lower bound theorem records as being the same for every NN; so neither depends on NN; and Z(π)\mathcal{Z}^{\sharp}(\pi) is the real number of part (a) of that theorem. Every summand on the left being nonnegative,

[tk,tk+1]pN(k)(s)ds  CπN(k{0,,K1}, NN1).(3.1)\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}p^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ \le\ \frac{C_{\pi}}{N}\qquad(k\in\{0,\dots,K-1\},\ N\ge N_{1}). \tag{3.1}

The bad-set estimate. Fix kk, s[tk,tk+1]s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}], cRlc\in\mathbb{R}^{l} and N1N\ge1, write C=Ck(s)\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_{k}(s) and p=pN(k)(s)p=p^{(k)}_{N}(s), and let M~γ\tilde{M}^{\gamma} be conditional expectations of XsγX'^{\gamma}_{s} given Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}, so that cεs=cXscM~c\cdot\varepsilon_{s}=c\cdot X'_{s}-c\cdot\tilde{M} almost surely by claim 2, where cM~=γcγM~γc\cdot\tilde{M}=\sum_{\gamma}c^{\gamma}\tilde{M}^{\gamma}. By claim 1 of the conditional expectation properties lemma, cM~c\cdot\tilde{M} is a conditional expectation of cXsc\cdot X'_{s} given Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}; by claim 4 of that lemma, applied with the bounded Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}-measurable Z=1CZ=\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}, the random variables 1C(cXs)\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot X'_{s}) and 1C(cM~)\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot\tilde{M}) are square-integrable and the latter is a conditional expectation of the former given Gs\mathcal{G}_{s}; and by claim 6 of that lemma, 1C(cM~)21C(cXs)2\lVert\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot\tilde{M})\rVert_{2}\le\lVert\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot X'_{s})\rVert_{2}. Since 1C(cεs)=1C(cXs)1C(cM~)\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot\varepsilon_{s})=\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot X'_{s})-\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot\tilde{M}) almost surely, and almost surely equal random variables have the same mean-square norm, claim 2 of the triangle inequality for the mean-square norm gives 1C(cεs)221C(cXs)2\lVert\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot\varepsilon_{s})\rVert_{2}\le2\lVert\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot X'_{s})\rVert_{2}, hence

E[1C(cεs)2]  4E[1C(cXs)2]  4c2E[1CXs2]  4c21C2Xs22  4c2C4p,(3.2)\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}\bigr]\ \le\ 4\,\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(c\cdot X'_{s})^{2}\bigr]\ \le\ 4|c|^{2}\,\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}\,|X'_{s}|^{2}\bigr]\ \le\ 4|c|^{2}\,\lVert\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}\rVert_{2}\,\bigl\lVert|X'_{s}|^{2}\bigr\rVert_{2}\ \le\ 4|c|^{2}\,C_{4}\,\sqrt{p}, \tag{3.2}

where C4=(cQκ)1/2C_{4}=(c_{Q}\kappa^{\sharp})^{1/2}: the second step is (cXs)2c2Xs2(c\cdot X'_{s})^{2}\le|c|^{2}|X'_{s}|^{2} pointwise, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for the dot product, together with the monotonicity of the integral; the third is claim 1 of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality for the mean-square norm, applied to the square-integrable random variables 1C\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}} and Xs2|X'_{s}|^{2} (the latter by the moment bound of claim 2); the fourth uses 1C22=E[1C]=p\lVert\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}\rVert_{2}^{2}=\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}]=p and Xs222=E[Xs4]cQκ\lVert|X'_{s}|^{2}\rVert_{2}^{2}=\mathbb{E}[|X'_{s}|^{4}]\le c_{Q}\kappa^{\sharp} from claim 2, the nonnegative square root being nondecreasing.

Lower bound for the tracked density. For s[0,T]s\in[0,T] put τs=γΞsγγ\tau_{s}=\sum_{\gamma}\Xi^{\gamma\gamma}_{s}; the function sτss\mapsto\tau_{s} is continuous on [0,T][0,T] by claim 1, hence by the extreme value theorem there is a real τ\tau^{\sharp} with τsτ\tau_{s}\le\tau^{\sharp} for every s[0,T]s\in[0,T], and τ0\tau^{\sharp}\ge0 because τs=j=1mγ(bs,jγ)20\tau_{s}=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\sum_{\gamma}(b^{\gamma}_{s,j})^{2}\ge0 by the factorisation Ξsγδ=jbs,jγbs,jδ\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}=\sum_{j}b^{\gamma}_{s,j}b^{\delta}_{s,j} of claim 1. Now fix kk and s[tk,tk+1]s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}], and write H=Tknr(s)\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{nr}}_{k}(s) and C=Ck(s)\mathcal{C}=\mathcal{C}_{k}(s), so that 1H=11C\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{H}}=1-\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}. Since HGs\mathcal{H}\in\mathcal{G}_{s}, claim 3 of the cascade filtering lemma gives

fN(k)(s)  γ,δΞsγδE[1Hεsγεsδ]=j=1mE[1H(bs,jεs)2]=j=1m(E[(bs,jεs)2]E[1C(bs,jεs)2]),f^{(k)}_{N}(s)\ \ge\ \sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\,\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{H}}\varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}\varepsilon^{\delta}_{s}\bigr]=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{H}}(b_{s,j}\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}\bigr]=\sum_{j=1}^{m}\Bigl(\mathbb{E}\bigl[(b_{s,j}\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}\bigr]-\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}}(b_{s,j}\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}\bigr]\Bigr),

the first equality by the column identity of claim 1 applied to the matrix Mγδ=E[1Hεsγεsδ]\mathcal{M}^{\gamma\delta}=\mathbb{E}[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{H}}\varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}\varepsilon^{\delta}_{s}], by the pointwise identity (bεs)2=γ,δbγbδεsγεsδ(b\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}=\sum_{\gamma,\delta}b^{\gamma}b^{\delta}\varepsilon^{\gamma}_{s}\varepsilon^{\delta}_{s} and by the linearity of the integral, the second by 1H=11C\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{H}}=1-\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{C}} and linearity again. Now j=1mbs,j2=jγ(bs,jγ)2=τsτ\sum_{j=1}^{m}|b_{s,j}|^{2}=\sum_{j}\sum_{\gamma}(b^{\gamma}_{s,j})^{2}=\tau_{s}\le\tau^{\sharp}. Applying (3.2) to each c=bs,jc=b_{s,j} and summing,

fN(k)(s)  j=1mE[(bs,jεs)2]4C4τpN(k)(s)(s[tk,tk+1], N1).(3.3)f^{(k)}_{N}(s)\ \ge\ \sum_{j=1}^{m}\mathbb{E}\bigl[(b_{s,j}\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}\bigr]-4C_{4}\tau^{\sharp}\sqrt{p^{(k)}_{N}(s)}\qquad(s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}],\ N\ge1). \tag{3.3}

Passage to the limit. For N1N\ge1 define on [tk,tk+1][t_{k},t_{k+1}]

gN(k)(s)=fN(k)(s)+4C4τpN(k)(s),g^{(k)}_{N}(s)=f^{(k)}_{N}(s)+4C_{4}\tau^{\sharp}\sqrt{p^{(k)}_{N}(s)} ,

which is measurable: the nonnegative square root is sequentially continuous on E=[0,1]E=[0,1], because for xy0x\ge y\ge0 one has (y+xy)2=x+2yxyx(\sqrt{y}+\sqrt{x-y})^{2}=x+2\sqrt{y}\sqrt{x-y}\ge x, hence xyxy|\sqrt{x}-\sqrt{y}|\le\sqrt{|x-y|} for all x,y0x,y\ge0, so that xnx<ζ2|x_{n}-x|<\zeta^{2} forces xnx<ζ|\sqrt{x_{n}}-\sqrt{x}|<\zeta; therefore pN(k)\sqrt{p^{(k)}_{N}} is measurable as the composition of the measurable function pN(k)p^{(k)}_{N}, with values in EE, with a sequentially continuous function on EE (sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps are measurable, with d=1d=1), and sums and scalar multiples of measurable functions are measurable (claim 2 of the arithmetic of measurable functions); and which is nonnegative by (3.3), since gN(k)(s)jE[(bs,jεs)2]0g^{(k)}_{N}(s)\ge\sum_{j}\mathbb{E}[(b_{s,j}\cdot\varepsilon_{s})^{2}]\ge0. Fix s[tk,tk+1]s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}] and let η>0\eta'>0. Applying claim 2 to each of the mm vectors c=bs,jc=b_{s,j} with tolerance η/m\eta'/m and taking the largest of the resulting thresholds, there is NN'' such that for every NNN\ge N''

gN(k)(s)  j=1m(bs,j(Πsbs,j)ηm)=γ,δΞsγδΠsγδη,g^{(k)}_{N}(s)\ \ge\ \sum_{j=1}^{m}\Bigl(b_{s,j}\cdot(\Pi_{s}b_{s,j})-\frac{\eta'}{m}\Bigr)=\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}-\eta',

again by the column identity. As η>0\eta'>0 was arbitrary,

lim infNgN(k)(s)  γ,δΞsγδΠsγδ(s[tk,tk+1]).\liminf_{N\to\infty}g^{(k)}_{N}(s)\ \ge\ \sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\qquad(s\in[t_{k},t_{k+1}]).

By Fatou's lemma, applied to the nonnegative measurable functions gN(k)g^{(k)}_{N} on [tk,tk+1][t_{k},t_{k+1}] with the restricted Lebesgue measure, and then by the monotonicity of the integral together with claim 1,

lim infN[tk,tk+1]gN(k)(s)ds  [tk,tk+1]lim infNgN(k)(s)ds  [tk,tk+1]γ,δΞsγδΠsγδds.\liminf_{N\to\infty}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}g^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ \ge\ \int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\liminf_{N\to\infty}g^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ \ge\ \int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\,ds .

The correction term vanishes in the limit: for every real θ>0\theta>0 and every real x0x\ge0 one has 2θxθ2+x2\theta\sqrt{x}\le\theta^{2}+x, because (xθ)20(\sqrt{x}-\theta)^{2}\ge0; hence, by the monotonicity and linearity of the integral and by (3.1), for NN1N\ge N_{1}

[tk,tk+1]pN(k)(s)ds  θ(tk+1tk)2+12θ[tk,tk+1]pN(k)(s)ds  θT2+Cπ2θN,\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\sqrt{p^{(k)}_{N}(s)}\,ds\ \le\ \frac{\theta\,(t_{k+1}-t_{k})}{2}+\frac{1}{2\theta}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}p^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ \le\ \frac{\theta T}{2}+\frac{C_{\pi}}{2\theta N},

the integrals being finite because the integrands are nonnegative, measurable and bounded by 11, so that by monotonicity each is at most the measure tk+1tkt_{k+1}-t_{k} of the block (claim 1 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval). Thus lim supN[tk,tk+1]pN(k)dsθT/2\limsup_{N\to\infty}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\sqrt{p^{(k)}_{N}}\,ds\le\theta T/2 for every θ>0\theta>0, so this sequence of nonnegative reals converges to 00. Since gN(k)ds=fN(k)ds+4C4τpN(k)ds\int g^{(k)}_{N}\,ds=\int f^{(k)}_{N}\,ds+4C_{4}\tau^{\sharp}\int\sqrt{p^{(k)}_{N}}\,ds over [tk,tk+1][t_{k},t_{k+1}] by the linearity of the integral of nonnegative measurable functions (claim 1 of the linearity theorem, an identity in [0,][0,\infty]), the second summand is finite, and the sequence of second summands converges to 00 — so that the two sequences fN(k)ds\int f^{(k)}_{N}\,ds and gN(k)ds\int g^{(k)}_{N}\,ds, with values in [0,][0,\infty], have the same limit inferior in [0,][0,\infty]

lim infN[tk,tk+1]fN(k)(s)ds = lim infN[tk,tk+1]gN(k)(s)ds  [tk,tk+1]γ,δΞsγδΠsγδds.\liminf_{N\to\infty}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}f^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ =\ \liminf_{N\to\infty}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}g^{(k)}_{N}(s)\,ds\ \ge\ \int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\,ds .

Hence for each kk there is N(k)N^{(k)} with [tk,tk+1]fN(k)ds[tk,tk+1]γ,δΞsγδΠsγδdsη/K\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}f^{(k)}_{N}\,ds\ge\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\,ds-\eta/K for every NN(k)N\ge N^{(k)}. Let N4N_{4} be the largest of N1,N(0),,N(K1)N_{1},N^{(0)},\dots,N^{(K-1)} and sum over kk. Since t0=0t_{0}=0, tK=Tt_{K}=T and tk<tk+1t_{k}<t_{k+1} for kK1k\le K-1 (the number of blocks KK being least with KT0TKT_{0}\ge T), the intervals [tk,tk+1][t_{k},t_{k+1}] are adjacent with union [0,T][0,T], so by the additivity of the Riemann integral of a continuous function over adjacent compact intervals (Additivity of the Riemann Integral on Adjacent Intervals), the Lebesgue integral of a continuous function over a compact interval being its Riemann integral by claim 3 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval, the sum of the right-hand sides is [0,T]γ,δΞsγδΠsγδdsη\int_{[0,T]}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\,ds-\eta. This proves claim 3.

Claim 4. Let ε>0\varepsilon''>0. By conclusion (b) of the asymptotic lower bound theorem, applied with ε=ε/2\varepsilon'=\varepsilon''/2, there are an admissible parameter vector π\pi satisfying the absorption condition of part (a) of that theorem and a natural number N0N_{0} such that for every NN0N\ge N_{0}

JN  V0+k=0K1[tk,tk+1]E[1Tknr(s)usRsus]dsε2,\mathcal{J}_{N}\ \ge\ V_{0}+\sum_{k=0}^{K-1}\int_{[t_{k},t_{k+1}]}\mathbb{E}\bigl[\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{T}^{\mathrm{nr}}_{k}(s)}u_{s}\cdot R_{s}u_{s}\bigr]\,ds-\frac{\varepsilon''}{2},

the blocks and near-field tracked events being those formed from π\pi. Apply claim 3 to this π\pi (which satisfies the absorption condition) with η=ε/2\eta=\varepsilon''/2, obtaining N4N_{4}, and put N5=max(N0,N4)N_{5}=\max(N_{0},N_{4}). For NN5N\ge N_{5} the two displays combine to

JN  V0+[0,T]γ,δΞsγδΠsγδdsε2ε2,\mathcal{J}_{N}\ \ge\ V_{0}+\int_{[0,T]}\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\Xi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_{s}\,ds-\frac{\varepsilon''}{2}-\frac{\varepsilon''}{2},

which is claim 4.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Comments

Loading…