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 is symmetric. Suppose it were not positive semidefinite, so that x⋅(Π0x)=−2η0<0 for some x∈Rl. Put ζ=η0/(1+∑γ,δ∣xγxδ∣)>0. By hypothesis (I) and the definition of the limit of a real sequence, applied to each of the finitely many sequences (E[s0γs0δ])N≥1, there is N′ such that E[s0γs0δ]−Π0γδ≤ζ for all γ,δ and all N≥N′. For such N, by the linearity of the integral,
so every D~t is positive semidefinite. The Riccati existence theorem therefore applies on [0,T] with k there equal to l, A=E, C=Θ⋆, D=D~ and P0=Π0, and yields the unique Π with continuous entries, every Πt being symmetric and satisfying 0⪯Πt, that is, positive semidefinite.
The weight Ξ. Every Ξt is symmetric positive semidefinite with continuous entries by claim 2 of the cascade filtering lemma. Fix t. Under (H1), conclusion (a) of the completion-of-squares theorem gives that Rt is symmetric positive definite, so Rt−1 is symmetric positive definite by Invertibility of Symmetric Positive Definite Matrices, and by the Cholesky factorisation there is a real matrix Lt with m rows and m columns and Rt−1=LtLt⊤. Put Bt=WtLt, a real matrix with l rows and m columns (this matrix always carries a time subscript and is distinct from the control matrix Bt and from the rate bound B of the common data), and let bt,1,…,bt,m∈Rl be its columns, so that (Bt)γj=bt,jγ. Then
called the column identity below. Taking M=Πt shows ∑γ,δΞtγδΠtγδ≥0, every Πt being positive semidefinite. That function of t is a finite sum of products of continuous functions, hence continuous, and therefore Lebesgue integrable on [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], c∈Rl and η>0, and put κ=c⋅(Πsc), a nonnegative real by claim 1.
The filtering error of Xs′. Let N≥1 and put Δs=Xs′−ss=N(Ss−Φs). Each component Δsγ is Gs-measurable, being the constant NSsγ minus the Gs-measurable random variable NΦsγ (claim 3 of the realized-flow adaptedness lemma), and is square-integrable as the difference of the square-integrable Xs′γ and ssγ. By the second immediate consequence recorded in the conditional-expectation definition, Δsγ is a conditional expectation of itself given Gs. Let Msγ be the conditional expectation of ssγ chosen in the definition of εsγ=ssγ−Msγ. By claim 1 of the conditional expectation properties lemma, Msγ+Δsγ is a conditional expectation of ssγ+Δsγ=Xs′γ given Gs, so by the uniqueness part of the existence and uniqueness theorem every conditional expectation M~γ of Xs′γ given Gs satisfies M~γ=Msγ+Δsγalmost surely, whence
Xs′γ−M~γ=ssγ+Δsγ−Msγ−Δsγ=εsγalmost 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=Xs′ and the sub-σ-algebra Gs, its filtering error ε is almost surely equal to εs, so that every expectation of a function of ε appearing in its conclusions equals the same expectation with εs in place of ε (almost surely equal integrable random variables have equal expectations), and the same applies to the quantities of its claims 1 and 2 with 1H≡1.
the last step by hypothesis (I′). This is the moment bound of claim 2. In particular ∣Xs′∣2 is square-integrable.
Apply Adjoint Energy Identity for the Kalman Covariance Riccati Equation with the endpoints 0 and T in the roles of a and b there, k there equal to l, the data E, Θ⋆, D~, Π0 and Π of claim 1, the time s and the vector x=c. It produces an assignment λ with continuous components and λ(s)=c, and by its claim 2 the assignment u↦Πuλ(u) has continuous components and satisfies the integral equation defining ψλ — 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) for every u. Its claim 3 then gives
Suppose first κ=0. Apply (VT) with this λ and with ϵ=1, obtaining N2; for N≥N2 the data of (VT) exist, and taking ϰ=0, which satisfies (C4) because (α⋅z)2≥0=0⋅(z⋅(Iz)), they form a van Trees certificate for the data (Xs′,Gs,Ω,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 1Ω≡1 and the almost-sure identification of the filtering errors made above,
E[γ,δ∑cγcδεsγεsδ]=E[(c⋅εs)2]≥0=κ≥κ−η,
the inequality being the nonnegativity of the expectation of a nonnegative random variable. Take N3=N2.
Suppose now κ>0, and put
ϵ=min{8κ,2κ,3+2κη}>0,ϰ=κ+ϵ(κ−ϵ)2,
with ⋅ the nonnegative square root. Apply (VT) with this λ and this ϵ, obtaining N2, and let N≥N3=N2 and let d, (Y,Y), ϱ0, D, ϑ1,…,ϑd, α, z, G be data as provided by (VT). Then
Three elementary estimates follow from 0<ϵ≤κ/8 and ϵ≤κ/2. First, (κ−3ϵ)(κ+ϵ)=κ2−2κϵ−3ϵ2≤κ2−2κϵ+ϵ2=(κ−ϵ)2, so ϰ≥κ−3ϵ. Second, ϵ≤3κ gives ϵ2≤3κϵ, hence (κ−ϵ)2=κ2−2κϵ+ϵ2≤κ2+κϵ=κ(κ+ϵ) and therefore ϰ≤κ and ϰ≤κ. Third, ϰ≥κ−3ϵ≥κ−3κ/8≥κ/4≥ϵ2, so ϰ≥ϵ.
the last step by the choice ϵ≤η/(3+2κ). This proves claim 2.
Claim 3. Fix an admissible parameter vector π satisfying the absorption condition, fix η>0, and for k∈{0,…,K−1} and N≥1 define
fN(k)(s)=E[1Tknr(s)us⋅Rsus](s∈[tk,tk+1]).
Each fN(k) is nonnegative, because us⋅Rsus≥r∣us∣2≥0 by (H1), and is measurable on [tk,tk+1] by hypothesis (MS); its integral over that block is the k-th summand appearing in claim 7 of the ledger lemma. Define also the bad sets and their probabilities
By claim 2 of the ledger lemma Tknr(s)∈Gs, so Ck(s)∈Gs, a σ-algebra being closed under complements. By the definitions in the ledger lemma, Tk(s) is the disjoint union of Tknr(s) and Tkfr(s), so Ck(s) is the disjoint union of Ω∖Tk(s) and Tkfr(s) and
pN(k)(s)=E[1−1Tk(s)]+E[1Tkfr(s)],
a function measurable on [tk,tk+1] by hypothesis (MS) and claim 2 of the arithmetic of measurable functions, with values in [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 1, so by monotonicity their integrals are at most tk+1−tk, 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,
with P≤Λ⋆ZΥlevN−1 from claim 1(d). Since π satisfies the absorption condition, part (a) of the asymptotic lower bound theorem provides N1 with Z≤Z♯(π) for N≥N1. Put Cπ=(TΛ⋆Υlev+ϱ−2)Z♯(π), a real number that does not depend on N: ϱ is a component of π; Λ⋆ and the level sum Υlev=∑k=0K−1Lk−2 of the ledger lemma are given by the explicit formulas Λ⋆=max(4Ca2K22T0,λc,λo) and Lk=(2Ca)k+1−Kε1 of the block cascade lemma, in which K is determined by T0 and T, the constant Ca by l, Λb and T, and K2 is one of the constants of the ledger lemma that the asymptotic lower bound theorem records as being the same for every N; so neither depends on N; and Z♯(π) is the real number of part (a) of that theorem. Every summand on the left being nonnegative,
The bad-set estimate. Fix k, s∈[tk,tk+1], c∈Rl and N≥1, write C=Ck(s) and p=pN(k)(s), and let M~γ be conditional expectations of Xs′γ given Gs, so that c⋅εs=c⋅Xs′−c⋅M~ almost surely by claim 2, where c⋅M~=∑γcγM~γ. By claim 1 of the conditional expectation properties lemma, c⋅M~ is a conditional expectation of c⋅Xs′ given Gs; by claim 4 of that lemma, applied with the bounded Gs-measurable Z=1C, the random variables 1C(c⋅Xs′) and 1C(c⋅M~) are square-integrable and the latter is a conditional expectation of the former given Gs; and by claim 6 of that lemma, ∥1C(c⋅M~)∥2≤∥1C(c⋅Xs′)∥2. Since 1C(c⋅εs)=1C(c⋅Xs′)−1C(c⋅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(c⋅εs)∥2≤2∥1C(c⋅Xs′)∥2, hence
Lower bound for the tracked density. For s∈[0,T] put τs=∑γΞsγγ; the function s↦τs is continuous on [0,T] by claim 1, hence by the extreme value theorem there is a real τ♯ with τs≤τ♯ for every s∈[0,T], and τ♯≥0 because τs=∑j=1m∑γ(bs,jγ)2≥0 by the factorisation Ξsγδ=∑jbs,jγbs,jδ of claim 1. Now fix k and s∈[tk,tk+1], and write H=Tknr(s) and C=Ck(s), so that 1H=1−1C. Since H∈Gs, claim 3 of the cascade filtering lemma gives
the first equality by the column identity of claim 1 applied to the matrix Mγδ=E[1Hεsγεsδ], by the pointwise identity (b⋅εs)2=∑γ,δbγbδεsγεsδ and by the linearity of the integral, the second by 1H=1−1C and linearity again. Now ∑j=1m∣bs,j∣2=∑j∑γ(bs,jγ)2=τs≤τ♯. Applying (3.2) to each c=bs,j and summing,
Passage to the limit. For N≥1 define on [tk,tk+1]
gN(k)(s)=fN(k)(s)+4C4τ♯pN(k)(s),
which is measurable: the nonnegative square root is sequentially continuous on E=[0,1], because for x≥y≥0 one has (y+x−y)2=x+2yx−y≥x, hence ∣x−y∣≤∣x−y∣ for all x,y≥0, so that ∣xn−x∣<ζ2 forces ∣xn−x∣<ζ; therefore pN(k) is measurable as the composition of the measurable function pN(k), with values in E, with a sequentially continuous function on E (sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps are measurable, with d=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,j⋅εs)2]≥0. Fix s∈[tk,tk+1] and let η′>0. Applying claim 2 to each of the m vectors c=bs,j with tolerance η′/m and taking the largest of the resulting thresholds, there is N′′ such that for every N≥N′′
By Fatou's lemma, applied to the nonnegative measurable functions gN(k) on [tk,tk+1] with the restricted Lebesgue measure, and then by the monotonicity of the integral together with claim 1,
The correction term vanishes in the limit: for every real θ>0 and every real x≥0 one has 2θx≤θ2+x, because (x−θ)2≥0; hence, by the monotonicity and linearity of the integral and by (3.1), for N≥N1
the integrals being finite because the integrands are nonnegative, measurable and bounded by 1, so that by monotonicity each is at most the measure tk+1−tk of the block (claim 1 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval). Thus limsupN→∞∫[tk,tk+1]pN(k)ds≤θT/2 for every θ>0, so this sequence of nonnegative reals converges to 0. Since ∫gN(k)ds=∫fN(k)ds+4C4τ♯∫pN(k)ds over [tk,tk+1] by the linearity of the integral of nonnegative measurable functions (claim 1 of the linearity theorem, an identity in [0,∞]), the second summand is finite, and the sequence of second summands converges to 0 — so that the two sequences ∫fN(k)ds and ∫gN(k)ds, with values in [0,∞], have the same limit inferior in [0,∞] —
Hence for each k there is N(k) with ∫[tk,tk+1]fN(k)ds≥∫[tk,tk+1]∑γ,δΞsγδΠsγδds−η/K for every N≥N(k). Let N4 be the largest of N1,N(0),…,N(K−1) and sum over k. Since t0=0, tK=T and tk<tk+1 for k≤K−1 (the number of blocks K being least with KT0≥T), the intervals [tk,tk+1] are adjacent with union [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,δΞsγδΠsγδds−η. This proves claim 3.
Claim 4. Let ε′′>0. By conclusion (b) of the asymptotic lower bound theorem, applied with ε′=ε′′/2, there are an admissible parameter vector π satisfying the absorption condition of part (a) of that theorem and a natural number N0 such that for every N≥N0
the blocks and near-field tracked events being those formed from π. Apply claim 3 to this π (which satisfies the absorption condition) with η=ε′′/2, obtaining N4, and put N5=max(N0,N4). For N≥N5 the two displays combine to