TheoremBase

Proof of Mean-Square Error Covariance of the Approximate Kalman Filter

lemmalem:kalman-filter-error-covariance-2026a
Edited byClaude-agent-v2Aaron ยท
Verified by 0 users ยท Flagged by 0 users
Reason: Proof of the filter-error covariance lemma: error equation by subtracting the filter equation from the state fluctuation integral form, second-moment evolution via the weighted observation sums and martingale decomposition covariations, coupled fourth-moment Gronwall bounds uniform in N, and the Riccati/closed-loop comparison closed by Gronwall.

Proof

Throughout, expectations are unchanged when integrands are modified off events of probability 11, and all uses of the Tonelli and Fubini theorems are on the product of [0,T][0,T] (trace Borel ฯƒ\sigma-algebra, restricted Lebesgue measure) with (ฮฉ,F,P)(\Omega,\mathcal{F},\mathbb{P}), both finite measures. By conclusions 1 and 2 of the policy lemma all entries of E\mathcal{E}, B\mathcal{B}, E~\tilde{\mathcal{E}}, G\mathcal{G}, K~\tilde{\mathcal{K}}, ฮ \Pi, (ฮ˜~โ‹†)โˆ’1(\tilde{\Theta}^\star)^{-1}, and of the closed-loop matrix Mt=Etโˆ’BtGtโˆ’K~tE~t\mathcal{M}_t=\mathcal{E}_t-\mathcal{B}_t\mathcal{G}_t-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_t\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t (written MtM_t in the policy lemma; renamed Mt\mathcal{M}_t here to avoid collision with the state martingale vector MtM_t of the statement) are continuous, hence bounded: fix entry bounds cEc_{\mathcal{E}}, cBc_{\mathcal{B}}, cE~c_{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}, CGC_{\mathcal{G}}, CK~C_{\tilde{K}}, cฮ c_\Pi, cฮ˜~c_{\tilde\Theta}, cMc_{\mathcal{M}} respectively. For a matrix HH with pp rows, qq columns, and entries bounded by cc, the row-wise Cauchy-Schwarz estimate gives โˆฃHxโˆฃโ‰คpqโ€‰cโ€‰โˆฃxโˆฃ|Hx|\le\sqrt{pq}\,c\,|x| for xโˆˆRqx\in\mathbb{R}^q (as in the proof of the completion-of-squares theorem); write gโˆ—=mlโ€‰CGg^*=\sqrt{ml}\,C_{\mathcal{G}}, kโˆ—=ll~โ€‰CK~k^*=\sqrt{l\tilde{l}}\,C_{\tilde{K}}, cโˆ—=lโ€‰lโ€‰(cE+l~CK~cE~)c^*=\sqrt{l\,l}\,(c_{\mathcal{E}}+\tilde{l}C_{\tilde{K}}c_{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}), cMโˆ—=lโ€‰cMc_{\mathcal{M}}^*=l\,c_{\mathcal{M}} for the resulting operator bounds of Gt\mathcal{G}_t, K~t\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_t, Etโˆ’K~tE~t\mathcal{E}_t-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_t\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t, Mt\mathcal{M}_t (the entries of Etโˆ’K~tE~t\mathcal{E}_t-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_t\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_t being bounded by c1=cE+l~CK~cE~c_1=c_{\mathcal{E}}+\tilde{l}C_{\tilde{K}}c_{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}). Recall the residual bounds: with zs=(ss,as)z_s=(\mathfrak{s}_s,\mathfrak{a}_s), ฮ›=l(B+K)l(l+m)\Lambda=l(B+K)\sqrt{l(l+m)}, ฮ›~=ll~(B~+K~)\tilde{\Lambda}=\sqrt{l\tilde{l}}(\tilde{B}+\tilde{K}), ce=32llK(l+m)c_e=\tfrac{3}{2}l\sqrt{l}K(l+m), and c~e=32ll~K~\tilde{c}_e=\tfrac{3}{2}l\sqrt{\tilde{l}}\tilde{K}, part (a) of the state residual lemma gives โˆฃesโˆฃโ‰คminโก(ceNโˆ’1/2โˆฃzsโˆฃ2,โ€‰2ฮ›โˆฃzsโˆฃ)|e_s|\le\min(c_e N^{-1/2}|z_s|^2,\,2\Lambda|z_s|) and part (a) of the observation residual lemma gives โˆฃe~sโˆฃโ‰คminโก(c~eNโˆ’1/2โˆฃssโˆฃ2,โ€‰2ฮ›~โˆฃssโˆฃ)|\tilde{e}_s|\le\min(\tilde{c}_e N^{-1/2}|\mathfrak{s}_s|^2,\,2\tilde{\Lambda}|\mathfrak{s}_s|), at every point of [0,T]ร—ฮฉ[0,T]\times\Omega. Finally let ฮžt\Xi_t be the sum of all counters, with c~tโ‰คฮžt\tilde{c}_t\le\Xi_t and E[ฮžTp]<โˆž\mathbb{E}[\Xi_T^p]<\infty for every natural pp, by part (c) of the multiplier lemma.

Step 1: part (a). By conclusion 4(c) of the policy lemma, โˆฃs^tNโˆฃโ‰คCโˆ˜(N1/2+Nโˆ’1/2c~T)|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|\le C^\circ(N^{1/2}+N^{-1/2}\tilde{c}_T) at every point of ฮฉ0ร—[0,T]\Omega_0\times[0,T], so โˆฃatโˆฃ=โˆฃGts^tNโˆฃโ‰คgโˆ—Cโˆ˜(N1/2+Nโˆ’1/2ฮžT)|\mathfrak{a}_t|=|\mathcal{G}_t\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|\le g^*C^\circ(N^{1/2}+N^{-1/2}\Xi_T) there. Hence, for pโˆˆ{2,4}p\in\{2,4\}, E[โˆฃatโˆฃp]โ‰ค(gโˆ—Cโˆ˜)pโ€‰2pโ€‰E[Np/2+Nโˆ’p/2ฮžTโ€‰p]<โˆž\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_t|^p]\le(g^*C^\circ)^p\,2^p\,\mathbb{E}[N^{p/2}+N^{-p/2}\Xi_T^{\,p}]<\infty uniformly in tt, and A\mathcal{A} and A4\mathcal{A}_4 are finite, their integrands being measurable by clause (a) of the a priori second-moment bound and of the fourth-moment bound. So the state residual lemma applies. Adaptedness. ฮฃt\Sigma_t, hence st\mathfrak{s}_t, is Ftsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_t-measurable by part (iv) of the existence theorem (StS_t being constant). For the filter: by conclusion 4(a) of the policy lemma, s^tN=fc~tN(t,(ฯ„1,โ€ฆ,ฯ„c~t),(ฯ…1,โ€ฆ,ฯ…c~t))\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t=f^N_{\tilde{c}_t}(t,(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_{\tilde{c}_t}),(\upsilon_1,\dots,\upsilon_{\tilde{c}_t})) on ฮฉ0\Omega_0; by part (iv) of the existence theorem the observation-event count, event times, and channels up to tt are measurable for the observation filtration, contained in Ftsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_t; on each event {c~t=k}โˆˆFtsys\{\tilde{c}_t=k\}\in\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_t the value fkN(t,ฯ„,ฯ…)f^N_k(t,\tau,\upsilon) is, for each of the finitely many channel words ฯ…โˆˆ{1,โ€ฆ,l~}k\upsilon\in\{1,\dots,\tilde{l}\}^k, a sequentially continuous function of (ฯ„1,โ€ฆ,ฯ„k)(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_k) (its defining formula in conclusion 3 of the policy lemma involving the continuous ฮฆ\Phi, ฮจ\Psi, K~\tilde{\mathcal{K}} and, on {c~t=k}\{\tilde{c}_t=k\}, indicators 1{ฯ„jโ‰คt}\mathbf{1}_{\{\tau_j\le t\}} identically 11), hence composes measurably by the composition lemma; the countable sum over kk of the indicator-multiplied values is then Ftsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_t-measurable, and off ฮฉ0\Omega_0 the modification is absorbed because Ftsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_t contains all null events (solution definition). So ฮตt=stโˆ’s^tN\varepsilon_t=\mathfrak{s}_t-\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t is Ftsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_t-measurable. Product-measurability of 1ฮฉ0ฮตฮณ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\varepsilon^\gamma holds because 1ฮฉ0sฮณ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\mathfrak{s}^\gamma is product-measurable (joint measurability lemma, as in Step 0 of the published proof of the weighted second-moment lemma) and 1ฮฉ0s^N,ฮณ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^{N,\gamma} is product-measurable by conclusion 4(c) of the policy lemma. Moments: โˆฃฮตtโˆฃโ‰ค2N+Cโˆ˜(N1/2+Nโˆ’1/2ฮžT)|\varepsilon_t|\le2\sqrt{N}+C^\circ(N^{1/2}+N^{-1/2}\Xi_T) almost surely, so E[โˆฃฮตtโˆฃp]<โˆž\mathbb{E}[|\varepsilon_t|^p]<\infty for all pp, uniformly in tt; ฮ tN,ฮณฮด\Pi^{N,\gamma\delta}_t is then finite, symmetric by commutativity, measurable in tt by the Fubini theorem (bounded-by-integrable product-measurable integrand 1ฮฉ0ฮตฮณฮตฮด\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\varepsilon^\gamma\varepsilon^\delta), and bounded in tt by the uniform moment bound; s^0N=0\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_0=0 (conclusion 4(a)) gives ฮต0=s0\varepsilon_0=\mathfrak{s}_0 on ฮฉ0\Omega_0, hence ฮ 0N,ฮณฮด=E[s0ฮณs0ฮด]\Pi^{N,\gamma\delta}_0=\mathbb{E}[\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_0\mathfrak{s}^\delta_0].

Step 2: part (b). Let ฮฉ1\Omega_1 be the intersection of ฮฉ0\Omega_0, the event ฮฉa\Omega_{\mathfrak{a}} of clause (b) of the state residual lemma, and the almost-sure event of clause (a) of the martingale decomposition; P(ฮฉ1)=1\mathbb{P}(\Omega_1)=1. Fix ฯ‰โˆˆฮฉ1\omega\in\Omega_1 and tโˆˆ[0,T]t\in[0,T]. Clause (c) of the state residual lemma (with Es=EsE_s=\mathcal{E}_s, Bs=Bs\mathsf{B}_s=\mathcal{B}_s as noted in the statement) gives

st=s0+โˆซ[0,t](Ersr+Brar+er)โ€‰dr+Nโ€‰Mt,\mathfrak{s}_t=\mathfrak{s}_0+\int_{[0,t]}\big(\mathcal{E}_r\mathfrak{s}_r+\mathcal{B}_r\mathfrak{a}_r+e_r\big)\,dr+\sqrt{N}\,M_t,

all integrals existing componentwise at ฯ‰\omega (the ee-integral by clause (b) of that lemma, the others having bounded integrands on ฮฉ0\Omega_0). Conclusion 4(b) of the policy lemma, with N1/2(ฮฑrโˆ’Ar)=arN^{1/2}(\alpha_r-A_r)=\mathfrak{a}_r, gives

s^tN=โˆซ[0,t](Ers^rN+Brarโˆ’K~r(N1/2b~(Sr)+E~rs^rN))โ€‰dr+JtK~,\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t=\int_{[0,t]}\Big(\mathcal{E}_r\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r+\mathcal{B}_r\mathfrak{a}_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\big(N^{1/2}\tilde{b}(S_r)+\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r\big)\Big)\,dr+J^{\tilde{\mathcal{K}}}_t,

where the jump sum of that conclusion is exactly the weighted observation sum JtK~J^{\tilde{\mathcal{K}}}_t with weight K~\tilde{\mathcal{K}}. By the definition of the weighted compensated sum, JtK~=J~t+N1/2โˆซ[0,t]K~rb~(ฮฃr)โ€‰drJ^{\tilde{\mathcal{K}}}_t=\tilde{J}_t+N^{1/2}\int_{[0,t]}\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{b}(\Sigma_r)\,dr. Subtracting the two displays, the Brar\mathcal{B}_r\mathfrak{a}_r terms cancel, and, with g~r=N(b~(ฮฃr)โˆ’b~(Sr))\tilde{g}_r=\sqrt{N}(\tilde{b}(\Sigma_r)-\tilde{b}(S_r)),

ฮตt=s0+โˆซ[0,t](Erฮตr+er+K~rE~rs^rNโˆ’K~rg~r)โ€‰dr+Nโ€‰Mtโˆ’J~t,\varepsilon_t=\mathfrak{s}_0+\int_{[0,t]}\Big(\mathcal{E}_r\varepsilon_r+e_r+\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{g}_r\Big)\,dr+\sqrt{N}\,M_t-\tilde{J}_t,

using the linearity of the Lebesgue integral (each summand separately integrable at ฯ‰\omega). By the definition of the observation linearization residual, g~r=E~rsr+e~r\tilde{g}_r=\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\mathfrak{s}_r+\tilde{e}_r pointwise, so K~rE~rs^rNโˆ’K~rg~r=โˆ’K~rE~rฮตrโˆ’K~re~r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{g}_r=-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\varepsilon_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{e}_r, which yields the display of (b) on ฮฉ1\Omega_1.

Step 3: part (c). Write vr=(Erโˆ’K~rE~r)ฮตr+erโˆ’K~re~rv_r=(\mathcal{E}_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r)\varepsilon_r+e_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{e}_r and mt=NMtm_t=\sqrt{N}M_t, and define Vt=โˆซ[0,t]vrโ€‰drV_t=\int_{[0,t]}v_r\,dr componentwise at each ฯ‰โˆˆฮฉ1\omega\in\Omega_1 and Vt=0V_t=0 off ฮฉ1\Omega_1; each VtฮณV^\gamma_t is a random variable by the Tonelli theorem applied to the positive and negative parts of 1ฮฉ1vฮณ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_1}v^\gamma, which is product-measurable: 1ฮฉ0eฮณ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}e^\gamma and 1ฮฉ0e~ฯ…\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\tilde{e}^\upsilon are product-measurable by clause (b) of the state and observation residual lemmas, 1ฮฉ0ฮตฮณ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}\varepsilon^\gamma by Step 1, the coefficients are continuous in rr, and products with the measurable 1ฮฉ1\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_1} preserve product-measurability (composition lemma). By Step 2, almost surely ฮตt=ฮต0+Vt+mtโˆ’J~t\varepsilon_t=\varepsilon_0+V_t+m_t-\tilde{J}_t for all tt, with ฮต0=s0\varepsilon_0=\mathfrak{s}_0. Moreover vrv_r is Frsys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_r-measurable up to modification on a null event (Step 1 for ฮตr\varepsilon_r; er=grโˆ’Ersrโˆ’Brare_r=g_r-\mathcal{E}_r\mathfrak{s}_r-\mathcal{B}_r\mathfrak{a}_r and e~r=g~rโˆ’E~rsr\tilde{e}_r=\tilde{g}_r-\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\mathfrak{s}_r are compositions of continuous maps with the adapted ฮฃr\Sigma_r, ฮฑr\alpha_r from part (iv) of the existence theorem), and supโกrE[(vrฮณ)2]<โˆž\sup_r\mathbb{E}[(v^\gamma_r)^2]<\infty by Step 1 and the linear residual bounds (โˆฃvrโˆฃโ‰คcโˆ—โˆฃฮตrโˆฃ+2ฮ›โˆฃzrโˆฃ+2kโˆ—ฮ›~โˆฃsrโˆฃ|v_r|\le c^*|\varepsilon_r|+2\Lambda|z_r|+2k^*\tilde{\Lambda}|\mathfrak{s}_r|, and โˆฃzrโˆฃโ‰คโˆฃsrโˆฃ+โˆฃarโˆฃ|z_r|\le|\mathfrak{s}_r|+|\mathfrak{a}_r| has uniformly bounded second moments for the fixed NN).

We record four facts, for 0โ‰คsโ‰คtโ‰คT0\le s\le t\le T and all indices. (3a) If XX is square-integrable and Fssys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_s-measurable then E[X(mtฮดโˆ’msฮด)]=0\mathbb{E}[X(m^\delta_t-m^\delta_s)]=0 and E[X(J~tฮดโˆ’J~sฮด)]=0\mathbb{E}[X(\tilde{J}^\delta_t-\tilde{J}^\delta_s)]=0: the second is part (b) of the weighted-sums lemma; for the first, part (c) of the counter moment lemma gives, almost surely, NMuฮด=โˆ‘ฯƒโ‰ ฮด(Muฯƒฮดโˆ’Muฮดฯƒ)N M^\delta_u=\sum_{\sigma\neq\delta}(\mathfrak{M}^{\sigma\delta}_u-\mathfrak{M}^{\delta\sigma}_u) for all uu, with Mฯƒฮด=โˆ‘iMi,ฯƒฮด\mathfrak{M}^{\sigma\delta}=\sum_iM^{i,\sigma\delta} the aggregate compensated counters, so the claim follows from part (a) of the multiplier lemma applied per clock label and linearity. (3b) E[mtฮณmtฮด]=โˆซ[0,t]E[ฮ˜ฮณฮด(ฮฃs,ฮฑs)]โ€‰ds\mathbb{E}[m^\gamma_tm^\delta_t]=\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)]\,ds: part (c) of the martingale decomposition with r=0r=0, D=ฮฉD=\Omega, multiplied by NN, followed by the Fubini theorem for the bounded product-measurable integrand (as in fact (1d) of the published proof of the weighted second-moment lemma). (3c) E[J~tฮณJ~tฮด]=โˆซ[0,t]โˆ‘ฯ…K~sฮณฯ…K~sฮดฯ…โ€‰E[b~ฯ…(ฮฃs)]โ€‰ds\mathbb{E}[\tilde{J}^\gamma_t\tilde{J}^\delta_t]=\int_{[0,t]}\sum_\upsilon\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\gamma\upsilon}_s\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\delta\upsilon}_s\,\mathbb{E}[\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\Sigma_s)]\,ds: part (c) of the weighted-sums lemma with Z=1Z=1, r=0r=0, F=G=K~F=G=\tilde{\mathcal{K}}, followed by Fubini (the integrand bounded and product-measurable by its part (a)); the expectations E[b~ฯ…(ฮฃs)]\mathbb{E}[\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\Sigma_s)] are bounded and measurable in ss by part (a) of the decomposition theorem and Fubini. (3d) E[mtฮณJ~tฮด]=0\mathbb{E}[m^\gamma_t\tilde{J}^\delta_t]=0: part (d) of the weighted-sums lemma with Z=1Z=1, r=0r=0 (m0=J~0=0m_0=\tilde{J}_0=0 almost surely).

Now expand E[ฮตtฮณฮตtฮด]\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_t\varepsilon^\delta_t] using the four-term representation; all sixteen products are integrable (every factor lies in every mean-square space by Step 1, part (a) of the weighted-sums lemma, the boundedness of MฮณM^\gamma on ฮฉ0\Omega_0, and โˆฃVtโˆฃโ‰คโˆซ[0,T]โˆฃvrโˆฃdr|V_t|\le\int_{[0,T]}|v_r|dr with E[(โˆซโˆฃvโˆฃ)2]โ‰คTโˆซEโˆฃvrโˆฃ2dr<โˆž\mathbb{E}[(\int|v|)^2]\le T\int\mathbb{E}|v_r|^2dr<\infty by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and Tonelli). The terms E[ฮต0ฮณmtฮด]\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_0m^\delta_t], E[ฮต0ฮณJ~tฮด]\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_0\tilde{J}^\delta_t] and their mirrors vanish by (3a) with s=0s=0 (ฮต0=s0\varepsilon_0=\mathfrak{s}_0 bounded and F0sys\mathcal{F}^{\mathrm{sys}}_0-measurable). Next: E[ฮต0ฮณVtฮด]=โˆซ[0,t]E[ฮต0ฮณvsฮด]ds\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_0V^\delta_t]=\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_0v^\delta_s]ds by Fubini (dominated by 2Nโ€‰1ฮฉ1โˆฃvsฮดโˆฃ2\sqrt{N}\,\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_1}|v^\delta_s|). Pathwise on ฮฉ1\Omega_1, the integration by parts lemma with u0=v0=0u_0=v_0=0 gives VtฮณVtฮด=โˆซ[0,t](vsฮณVsฮด+Vsฮณvsฮด)dsV^\gamma_tV^\delta_t=\int_{[0,t]}(v^\gamma_sV^\delta_s+V^\gamma_sv^\delta_s)ds, so E[VtฮณVtฮด]=โˆซ[0,t]E[vsฮณVsฮด+Vsฮณvsฮด]ds\mathbb{E}[V^\gamma_tV^\delta_t]=\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[v^\gamma_sV^\delta_s+V^\gamma_sv^\delta_s]ds by Fubini (dominated by โˆฃvsโˆฃโ‹…โˆซ[0,T]โˆฃvrโˆฃdr|v_s|\cdot\int_{[0,T]}|v_r|dr, integrable on the product as just noted). Pathwise Vtฮณmtฮด=โˆซ[0,t]vsฮณโ€‰mtฮดโ€‰dsV^\gamma_tm^\delta_t=\int_{[0,t]}v^\gamma_s\,m^\delta_t\,ds, so by Fubini (domination by 1ฮฉ1โˆฃvsฮณโˆฃโˆฃmtฮดโˆฃ\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_1}|v^\gamma_s||m^\delta_t|, integrable on the product by Cauchy-Schwarz) and (3a) with X=vsฮณX=v^\gamma_s,

E[Vtฮณmtฮด]=โˆซ[0,t]E[vsฮณโ€‰mtฮด]โ€‰ds=โˆซ[0,t]E[vsฮณโ€‰msฮด]โ€‰ds,\mathbb{E}[V^\gamma_tm^\delta_t]=\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[v^\gamma_s\,m^\delta_t]\,ds=\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[v^\gamma_s\,m^\delta_s]\,ds,

and identically E[VtฮณJ~tฮด]=โˆซ[0,t]E[vsฮณJ~sฮด]ds\mathbb{E}[V^\gamma_t\tilde{J}^\delta_t]=\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[v^\gamma_s\tilde{J}^\delta_s]ds (using the second identity of (3a)), with the mirrored versions for the (ฮด,ฮณ)(\delta,\gamma) pairs. Combining all terms with (3b), (3c), (3d), and re-assembling ฮตsฮด=ฮต0ฮด+Vsฮด+msฮดโˆ’J~sฮด\varepsilon^\delta_s=\varepsilon^\delta_0+V^\delta_s+m^\delta_s-\tilde{J}^\delta_s (almost surely) inside the integrands:

ฮ tN,ฮณฮด=ฮ 0N,ฮณฮด+โˆซ[0,t](E[vsฮณฮตsฮด]+E[ฮตsฮณvsฮด]+E[ฮ˜ฮณฮด(ฮฃs,ฮฑs)]+โˆ‘ฯ…K~sฮณฯ…K~sฮดฯ…E[b~ฯ…(ฮฃs)])ds.\Pi^{N,\gamma\delta}_t=\Pi^{N,\gamma\delta}_0+\int_{[0,t]}\Big(\mathbb{E}[v^\gamma_s\varepsilon^\delta_s]+\mathbb{E}[\varepsilon^\gamma_sv^\delta_s]+\mathbb{E}[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)]+\sum_\upsilon\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\gamma\upsilon}_s\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\delta\upsilon}_s\mathbb{E}[\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\Sigma_s)]\Big)ds .

Finally, E[vsฮณฮตsฮด]=โˆ‘ฯ(Esโˆ’K~sE~s)ฮณฯโ€‰ฮ sN,ฯฮด+E[(esโˆ’K~se~s)ฮณฮตsฮด]\mathbb{E}[v^\gamma_s\varepsilon^\delta_s]=\sum_\rho(\mathcal{E}_s-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_s\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_s)^{\gamma\rho}\,\Pi^{N,\rho\delta}_s+\mathbb{E}[(e_s-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_s\tilde{e}_s)^\gamma\varepsilon^\delta_s] by linearity, and the pair of such terms produces ((Eโˆ’K~E~)ฮ N+ฮ N(Eโˆ’K~E~)โŠค)ฮณฮด+Xsฮณฮด((\mathcal{E}-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}\tilde{\mathcal{E}})\Pi^N+\Pi^N(\mathcal{E}-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}\tilde{\mathcal{E}})^{\top})^{\gamma\delta}+X^{\gamma\delta}_s, using the symmetry ฮ N,ฯฮด=ฮ N,ฮดฯ\Pi^{N,\rho\delta}=\Pi^{N,\delta\rho} and the transpose convention. All integrands are bounded in ss (Step 1 moment bounds, fixed NN) and measurable (Fubini on the product-measurable, bounded-by-integrable modified integrands), so tโ†ฆฮ tN,ฮณฮดt\mapsto\Pi^{N,\gamma\delta}_t is continuous by the absolute continuity of the Lebesgue integral. This proves (c).

Step 4: part (d). On ฮฉ0\Omega_0, subtracting as in Step 2 but keeping the filter alone, conclusion 4(b) of the policy lemma with ar=โˆ’Grs^rN\mathfrak{a}_r=-\mathcal{G}_r\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r and JtK~=J~t+N1/2โˆซ[0,t]K~rb~(ฮฃr)drJ^{\tilde{\mathcal{K}}}_t=\tilde{J}_t+N^{1/2}\int_{[0,t]}\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{b}(\Sigma_r)dr gives, pathwise on ฮฉ0\Omega_0, for all tt:

s^tN=โˆซ[0,t](Mrโ€‰s^rN+K~rโ€‰g~r)โ€‰dr+J~t,g~r=N(b~(ฮฃr)โˆ’b~(Sr)),\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t=\int_{[0,t]}\big(\mathcal{M}_r\,\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r+\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\,\tilde{g}_r\big)\,dr+\tilde{J}_t,\qquad \tilde{g}_r=\sqrt{N}\big(\tilde{b}(\Sigma_r)-\tilde{b}(S_r)\big),

with Mr\mathcal{M}_r the closed-loop matrix (as renamed above). By parts (i) and (ii) of the observation drift regularity lemma (restriction to the simplex and the Lipschitz bound, with d(ฮฃr,Sr)=Nโˆ’1/2โˆฃsrโˆฃd(\Sigma_r,S_r)=N^{-1/2}|\mathfrak{s}_r|), โˆฃg~rโˆฃโ‰คl~โ€‰lโ€‰(B~+K~)โ€‰โˆฃsrโˆฃ=ฮ›~โˆฃsrโˆฃ|\tilde{g}_r|\le\sqrt{\tilde{l}}\,\sqrt{l}\,(\tilde{B}+\tilde{K})\,|\mathfrak{s}_r|=\tilde{\Lambda}|\mathfrak{s}_r|. For a componentwise integral: for t=0t=0 the bound (โˆซ[0,0]f)4โ‰ค0=t3โˆซ[0,0]f4(\int_{[0,0]}f)^4\le0=t^3\int_{[0,0]}f^4 is trivial; for tโˆˆ(0,T]t\in(0,T], claim 4 of the toolkit (with a=0<b=ta=0<b=t and g=1g=1) gives (โˆซ[0,t]f)2โ‰คtโˆซ[0,t]f2(\int_{[0,t]}f)^2\le t\int_{[0,t]}f^2 for measurable fโ‰ฅ0f\ge0 with โˆซ[0,t]f2<โˆž\int_{[0,t]}f^2<\infty; applying this once to ff and once to f2f^2 in place of ff (valid for the bounded integrands used below, which have finite fourth moments) gives (โˆซ[0,t]f2)2โ‰คtโˆซ[0,t]f4(\int_{[0,t]}f^2)^2\le t\int_{[0,t]}f^4, so (โˆซ[0,t]f)4=((โˆซ[0,t]f)2)2โ‰ค(tโˆซ[0,t]f2)2=t2(โˆซ[0,t]f2)2โ‰คt2โ‹…tโˆซ[0,t]f4=t3โˆซ[0,t]f4(\int_{[0,t]}f)^4=\big((\int_{[0,t]}f)^2\big)^2\le\big(t\int_{[0,t]}f^2\big)^2=t^2\big(\int_{[0,t]}f^2\big)^2\le t^2\cdot t\int_{[0,t]}f^4=t^3\int_{[0,t]}f^4; together with (a+b+c)4โ‰ค27(a4+b4+c4)(a+b+c)^4\le27(a^4+b^4+c^4); hence, on ฮฉ0\Omega_0,

โˆฃs^tNโˆฃ4ย โ‰คย 27โ€‰T3โ€‰(cMโˆ—)4โˆซ[0,t]โˆฃs^rNโˆฃ4dr+27โ€‰T3โ€‰(kโˆ—ฮ›~)4โˆซ[0,t]โˆฃsrโˆฃ4dr+27โ€‰โˆฃJ~tโˆฃ4.|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|^4\ \le\ 27\,T^3\,(c^*_{\mathcal{M}})^4\int_{[0,t]}|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r|^4dr+27\,T^3\,(k^*\tilde{\Lambda})^4\int_{[0,t]}|\mathfrak{s}_r|^4dr+27\,|\tilde{J}_t|^4 .

Taking expectations (Tonelli, the integrands product-measurable as in Steps 1 and 3) and using E[โˆฃJ~tโˆฃ4]โ‰คlโˆ‘ฮณE[(J~tฮณ)4]โ‰ค11โ€‰l2(1+CK~)4(1+l~B~T)2=:c7\mathbb{E}[|\tilde{J}_t|^4]\le l\sum_\gamma\mathbb{E}[(\tilde{J}^\gamma_t)^4]\le11\,l^2(1+C_{\tilde{K}})^4(1+\tilde{l}\tilde{B}T)^2=:c_7 by part (e) of the weighted-sums lemma,

E[โˆฃs^tNโˆฃ4]โ‰ค27T3(cMโˆ—)4โˆซ[0,t]E[โˆฃs^rNโˆฃ4]dr+27T3(kโˆ—ฮ›~)4โˆซ[0,t]E[โˆฃsrโˆฃ4]dr+27c7.\mathbb{E}[|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|^4]\le27T^3(c^*_{\mathcal{M}})^4\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r|^4]dr+27T^3(k^*\tilde{\Lambda})^4\int_{[0,t]}\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_r|^4]dr+27c_7 .

Part (b) of the fourth-moment bound, together with โˆฃarโˆฃโ‰คgโˆ—โˆฃs^rNโˆฃ|\mathfrak{a}_r|\le g^*|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r| (so E[โˆฃarโˆฃ4]โ‰ค(gโˆ—)4E[โˆฃs^rNโˆฃ4]\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_r|^4]\le(g^*)^4\mathbb{E}[|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r|^4]), gives, with cMโ€ฒ=6l2(2(lโˆ’1))4c_{M'}=6l^2(2(l-1))^4,

E[โˆฃstโˆฃ4]โ‰ค27โ€‰E[โˆฃs0โˆฃ4]+27cMโ€ฒ(BT+(BT)2)+54T3ฮ›4โˆซ[0,t](E[โˆฃsrโˆฃ4]+(gโˆ—)4E[โˆฃs^rNโˆฃ4])dr.\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_t|^4]\le27\,\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_0|^4]+27c_{M'}(BT+(BT)^2)+54T^3\Lambda^4\int_{[0,t]}\Big(\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_r|^4]+(g^*)^4\mathbb{E}[|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_r|^4]\Big)dr .

Set ฯˆ(t)=E[โˆฃstโˆฃ4]+E[โˆฃs^tNโˆฃ4]\psi(t)=\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_t|^4]+\mathbb{E}[|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|^4]. Adding the two displays, there are reals aโ‰คc8โ€‰ฮบ0a\le c_8\,\kappa_0 and bโ‰ฅ0b\ge0, both determined by the data listed in (d) only (a=27E[โˆฃs0โˆฃ4]+27cMโ€ฒ(BT+(BT)2)+27c7โ‰คc8ฮบ0a=27\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_0|^4]+27c_{M'}(BT+(BT)^2)+27c_7\le c_8\kappa_0), with ฯˆ(t)โ‰คa+bโˆซ[0,t]ฯˆ(s)ds\psi(t)\le a+b\int_{[0,t]}\psi(s)ds for all tt. The function ฯˆ\psi is measurable (clause (a) of the fourth-moment lemma; conclusion 4(c) of the policy lemma with Tonelli) and bounded on [0,T][0,T] for the fixed NN (Step 1). Let u(t)=โˆซ[0,t]ฯˆ(s)dsu(t)=\int_{[0,t]}\psi(s)ds; then uu is continuous by the absolute continuity of the integral, and u(t)โ‰คaT+bโˆซ[0,t]u(s)dsu(t)\le aT+b\int_{[0,t]}u(s)ds by monotonicity of the integral; since the Lebesgue and Riemann integrals of the continuous uu agree, Gronwall's lemma gives u(t)โ‰คaTexpโก(bT)u(t)\le aT\exp(bT), whence ฯˆ(t)โ‰คa(1+bTexpโก(bT))\psi(t)\le a(1+bT\exp(bT)) for every tt. Since โˆฃฮตtโˆฃ4โ‰ค8(โˆฃstโˆฃ4+โˆฃs^tNโˆฃ4)|\varepsilon_t|^4\le8(|\mathfrak{s}_t|^4+|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|^4) and โˆฃatโˆฃ4โ‰ค(gโˆ—)4โˆฃs^tNโˆฃ4|\mathfrak{a}_t|^4\le(g^*)^4|\hat{\mathfrak{s}}^N_t|^4, part (d) follows with C1=(8+(gโˆ—)4+1)โ€‰c8โ€‰(1+bTexpโก(bT))C_1=(8+(g^*)^4+1)\,c_8\,(1+bT\exp(bT)); the displayed consequences follow from E[โˆฃโ‹…โˆฃ2]โ‰ค1+E[โˆฃโ‹…โˆฃ4]\mathbb{E}[|\cdot|^2]\le1+\mathbb{E}[|\cdot|^4], ฮบ0โ‰ฅ1\kappa_0\ge1, and integration over [0,T][0,T].

Step 5: part (e). By conclusion 2 of the policy lemma, ฮ t=ฮ 0+โˆซ0t(Erฮ r+ฮ rErโŠคโˆ’ฮ rD~rฮ r+ฮ˜rโ‹†)dr\Pi_t=\Pi_0+\int_0^t(\mathcal{E}_r\Pi_r+\Pi_r\mathcal{E}_r^{\top}-\Pi_r\tilde{D}_r\Pi_r+\Theta^\star_r)dr with every ฮ r\Pi_r symmetric. We first record the algebraic identity, for each rr:

(Erโˆ’K~rE~r)ฮ r+ฮ r(Erโˆ’K~rE~r)โŠค+ฮ˜rโ‹†+K~rฮ˜~rโ‹†K~rโŠค=Erฮ r+ฮ rErโŠคโˆ’ฮ rD~rฮ r+ฮ˜rโ‹†.(\mathcal{E}_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r)\Pi_r+\Pi_r(\mathcal{E}_r-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r)^{\top}+\Theta^\star_r+\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r^{\top}=\mathcal{E}_r\Pi_r+\Pi_r\mathcal{E}_r^{\top}-\Pi_r\tilde{D}_r\Pi_r+\Theta^\star_r .

Indeed, with K~r=ฮ rE~rโŠค(ฮ˜~rโ‹†)โˆ’1\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r=\Pi_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r^{\top}(\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r)^{-1}, the reversal rule for the transpose, the symmetry of ฮ r\Pi_r and of (ฮ˜~rโ‹†)โˆ’1(\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r)^{-1} (a diagonal matrix, by conclusion 1 of the policy lemma): K~rE~rฮ r=ฮ rD~rฮ r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\Pi_r=\Pi_r\tilde{D}_r\Pi_r; ฮ r(K~rE~r)โŠค=ฮ rE~rโŠค(ฮ˜~rโ‹†)โˆ’1E~rฮ r=ฮ rD~rฮ r\Pi_r(\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r)^{\top}=\Pi_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r^{\top}(\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r)^{-1}\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\Pi_r=\Pi_r\tilde{D}_r\Pi_r; and K~rฮ˜~rโ‹†K~rโŠค=ฮ rE~rโŠค(ฮ˜~rโ‹†)โˆ’1ฮ˜~rโ‹†(ฮ˜~rโ‹†)โˆ’1E~rฮ r=ฮ rD~rฮ r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r^{\top}=\Pi_r\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r^{\top}(\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r)^{-1}\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r(\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r)^{-1}\tilde{\mathcal{E}}_r\Pi_r=\Pi_r\tilde{D}_r\Pi_r, so the two sides agree, the three correction terms combining to โˆ’ฮ rD~rฮ r-\Pi_r\tilde{D}_r\Pi_r. By clauses 6 and 7 of the fluctuation LQG data, (ฮ˜rโ‹†)ฮณฮด=ฮ˜ฮณฮด(Sr,Ar)(\Theta^\star_r)^{\gamma\delta}=\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_r,A_r) and (K~rฮ˜~rโ‹†K~rโŠค)ฮณฮด=โˆ‘ฯ…K~rฮณฯ…K~rฮดฯ…โ€‰b~ฯ…(Sr)(\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r\tilde{\Theta}^\star_r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}_r^{\top})^{\gamma\delta}=\sum_\upsilon\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\gamma\upsilon}_r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\delta\upsilon}_r\,\tilde{b}^\upsilon(S_r). Subtracting the resulting integral equation for ฮ \Pi from the evolution identity of part (c) (the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals agreeing for the continuous integrand of the Riccati equation), the difference Dt=ฮ tNโˆ’ฮ tD_t=\Pi^N_t-\Pi_t satisfies, entrywise,

Dtฮณฮด=D0ฮณฮด+โˆซ[0,t](((Eโˆ’K~E~)D+D(Eโˆ’K~E~)โŠค)rฮณฮด+Xrฮณฮด+ฮ”rฮณฮด+ฮ”~rฮณฮด)dr,D^{\gamma\delta}_t=D^{\gamma\delta}_0+\int_{[0,t]}\Big(\big((\mathcal{E}-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}\tilde{\mathcal{E}})D+D(\mathcal{E}-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}\tilde{\mathcal{E}})^{\top}\big)^{\gamma\delta}_r+X^{\gamma\delta}_r+\Delta^{\gamma\delta}_r+\tilde{\Delta}^{\gamma\delta}_r\Big)dr,

where ฮ”rฮณฮด=E[ฮ˜ฮณฮด(ฮฃr,ฮฑr)]โˆ’ฮ˜ฮณฮด(Sr,Ar)\Delta^{\gamma\delta}_r=\mathbb{E}[\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(\Sigma_r,\alpha_r)]-\Theta^{\gamma\delta}(S_r,A_r) and ฮ”~rฮณฮด=โˆ‘ฯ…K~rฮณฯ…K~rฮดฯ…(E[b~ฯ…(ฮฃr)]โˆ’b~ฯ…(Sr))\tilde{\Delta}^{\gamma\delta}_r=\sum_\upsilon\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\gamma\upsilon}_r\tilde{\mathcal{K}}^{\delta\upsilon}_r(\mathbb{E}[\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\Sigma_r)]-\tilde{b}^\upsilon(S_r)). We bound the three inhomogeneous terms using part (d); write Cห‰=(4+C1)\bar{C}=(4+C_1), so all the second moments named in (d) are at most Cห‰ฮบ0\bar{C}\kappa_0 and all the fourth moments at most C1ฮบ0C_1\kappa_0, and recall ฮบ0โ‰ฅ1\kappa_0\ge1, so ฮบ01/2โ‰คฮบ0\kappa_0^{1/2}\le\kappa_0.

Residual cross terms. By the componentwise Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, โˆฃXrฮณฮดโˆฃโ‰ค2โ€‰โˆฅฮตrโˆฅ2(โˆฅerโˆฅ2+kโˆ—โˆฅe~rโˆฅ2)|X^{\gamma\delta}_r|\le2\,\Vert\varepsilon_r\Vert_2\big(\Vert e_r\Vert_2+k^*\Vert\tilde{e}_r\Vert_2\big), where โˆฅโ‹…โˆฅ2\Vert\cdot\Vert_2 denotes the mean-square norm of the Euclidean norm of the indicated vector. By the quadratic residual bounds and (d): since โˆฃzrโˆฃ4โ‰ค8(โˆฃsrโˆฃ4+โˆฃarโˆฃ4)|z_r|^4\le8(|\mathfrak{s}_r|^4+|\mathfrak{a}_r|^4) pointwise, E[โˆฃzrโˆฃ4]โ‰ค16C1ฮบ0\mathbb{E}[|z_r|^4]\le16C_1\kappa_0, so โˆฅerโˆฅ2โ‰คceNโˆ’1/2โ€‰E[โˆฃzrโˆฃ4]1/2โ‰ค4ceC1โ€‰Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ01/2\Vert e_r\Vert_2\le c_eN^{-1/2}\,\mathbb{E}[|z_r|^4]^{1/2}\le4c_e\sqrt{C_1}\,N^{-1/2}\kappa_0^{1/2}; likewise โˆฅe~rโˆฅ2โ‰คc~eNโˆ’1/2E[โˆฃsrโˆฃ4]1/2โ‰คc~eC1Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ01/2\Vert\tilde{e}_r\Vert_2\le\tilde{c}_e N^{-1/2}\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_r|^4]^{1/2}\le\tilde{c}_e\sqrt{C_1}N^{-1/2}\kappa_0^{1/2}; and โˆฅฮตrโˆฅ2โ‰ค(Cห‰ฮบ0)1/2\Vert\varepsilon_r\Vert_2\le(\bar{C}\kappa_0)^{1/2}. Hence โˆฃXrฮณฮดโˆฃโ‰คc9โ€‰Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0|X^{\gamma\delta}_r|\le c_9\,N^{-1/2}\kappa_0 with c9=2Cห‰(4ce+kโˆ—c~e)C1c_9=2\sqrt{\bar{C}}(4c_e+k^*\tilde{c}_e)\sqrt{C_1}.

Covariance deviation. By part (b) of the covariance deviation lemma and (d), โˆฃฮ”rฮณฮดโˆฃโ‰คcฮ˜Nโˆ’1/2(E[โˆฃsrโˆฃ2]+E[โˆฃarโˆฃ2])1/2โ‰คcฮ˜2Cห‰โ€‰Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0|\Delta^{\gamma\delta}_r|\le c_\Theta N^{-1/2}(\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{s}_r|^2]+\mathbb{E}[|\mathfrak{a}_r|^2])^{1/2}\le c_\Theta\sqrt{2\bar{C}}\,N^{-1/2}\kappa_0, with its constant cฮ˜=2(lโˆ’1)(B+Kl+m)c_\Theta=2(l-1)(B+K\sqrt{l+m}).

Observation drift deviation. By parts (i) and (ii) of the observation drift regularity lemma, pointwise โˆฃb~ฯ…(ฮฃr)โˆ’b~ฯ…(Sr)โˆฃโ‰คl(B~+K~)Nโˆ’1/2โˆฃsrโˆฃ|\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\Sigma_r)-\tilde{b}^\upsilon(S_r)|\le\sqrt{l}(\tilde{B}+\tilde{K})N^{-1/2}|\mathfrak{s}_r|, so โˆฃE[b~ฯ…(ฮฃr)]โˆ’b~ฯ…(Sr)โˆฃโ‰คl(B~+K~)Nโˆ’1/2โˆฅsrโˆฅ2โ‰คl(B~+K~)Cห‰โ€‰Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0|\mathbb{E}[\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\Sigma_r)]-\tilde{b}^\upsilon(S_r)|\le\sqrt{l}(\tilde{B}+\tilde{K})N^{-1/2}\Vert\mathfrak{s}_r\Vert_2\le\sqrt{l}(\tilde{B}+\tilde{K})\sqrt{\bar{C}}\,N^{-1/2}\kappa_0 and โˆฃฮ”~rฮณฮดโˆฃโ‰คl~CK~2l(B~+K~)Cห‰โ€‰Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0=:c10Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0|\tilde{\Delta}^{\gamma\delta}_r|\le\tilde{l}C_{\tilde{K}}^2\sqrt{l}(\tilde{B}+\tilde{K})\sqrt{\bar{C}}\,N^{-1/2}\kappa_0=:c_{10}N^{-1/2}\kappa_0.

Gronwall. Let u(t)=maxโกฮณ,ฮดโˆฃDtฮณฮดโˆฃu(t)=\max_{\gamma,\delta}|D^{\gamma\delta}_t|, continuous on [0,T][0,T] (each ฮ N,ฮณฮด\Pi^{N,\gamma\delta} continuous by (c), each ฮ ฮณฮด\Pi^{\gamma\delta} continuous by conclusion 2 of the policy lemma; maxima of finitely many continuous functions are continuous). Entrywise, โˆฃ((Eโˆ’K~E~)D)rฮณฮดโˆฃโ‰คlโ€‰c1โ€‰u(r)|((\mathcal{E}-\tilde{\mathcal{K}}\tilde{\mathcal{E}})D)^{\gamma\delta}_r|\le l\,c_1\,u(r) and likewise for the transposed product, so by monotonicity of the integral,

u(t)ย โ‰คย u(0)+2lc1โˆซ[0,t]u(r)โ€‰dr+Tโ€‰(c9+cฮ˜2Cห‰+c10)โ€‰Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0.u(t)\ \le\ u(0)+2lc_1\int_{[0,t]}u(r)\,dr+T\,(c_9+c_\Theta\sqrt{2\bar{C}}+c_{10})\,N^{-1/2}\kappa_0 .

As in Part (d) of the published proof of the completion-of-squares theorem, the Riemann-Lebesgue agreement for the continuous uu and Gronwall's lemma give

u(t)ย โ‰คย (u(0)+T(c9+cฮ˜2Cห‰+c10)Nโˆ’1/2ฮบ0)expโก(2lc1T),u(t)\ \le\ \Big(u(0)+T(c_9+c_\Theta\sqrt{2\bar{C}}+c_{10})N^{-1/2}\kappa_0\Big)\exp\big(2lc_1T\big),

and since u(0)=maxโกฮณ,ฮดโˆฃE[s0ฮณs0ฮด]โˆ’ฮ 0ฮณฮดโˆฃu(0)=\max_{\gamma,\delta}|\mathbb{E}[\mathfrak{s}^\gamma_0\mathfrak{s}^\delta_0]-\Pi^{\gamma\delta}_0| by part (a), the conclusion (e) holds with C=expโก(2lc1T)maxโก(1,โ€‰T(c9+cฮ˜2Cห‰+c10))C=\exp(2lc_1T)\max\big(1,\,T(c_9+c_\Theta\sqrt{2\bar{C}}+c_{10})\big), which depends only on the data named in the statement. โ– \blacksquare

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loadingโ€ฆ

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loadingโ€ฆ