TheoremBase

Proof

Throughout we use linearity and monotonicity of the Lebesgue integral and the fact that a bounded measurable function on a compact interval is integrable. Points of Δl\Delta^l have Euclidean norm at most 11, so ∣Σ−Σ′∣≤2|\Sigma-\Sigma'|\le2 for Σ,Σ′∈Δl\Sigma,\Sigma'\in\Delta^l.

Claim 1. Fix ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_0. By condition 1 of the definition of a solution, each state path t↦σti(ω)t\mapsto\sigma^i_t(\omega) is constant on each of finitely many intervals partitioning [0,T][0,T], so each occupation indicator t↦ηti,γ(ω)t\mapsto\eta^{i,\gamma}_t(\omega), and hence t↦Σtγ(ω)=1N∑iηti,γ(ω)t\mapsto\Sigma^\gamma_t(\omega)=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i}\eta^{i,\gamma}_t(\omega), is a finite linear combination of indicator functions of intervals; intervals belong to the trace Borel σ\sigma-algebra, so these paths are measurable by measurability of sums and scalar multiples of measurable functions (indicators of measurable sets being measurable), and they take values in [0,1][0,1]. The path s↦bγ(Σs(ω),αs(ω))s\mapsto b^\gamma(\Sigma_s(\omega),\alpha_s(\omega)) is measurable and bounded in absolute value by 2(l−1)B2(l-1)B by part (a) of the martingale decomposition theorem, so by part (i) of the integration-by-parts lemma (applied with that path as its first integrand, the second integrand and both initial values taken to be 00; every later use of part (i) in this proof is of the same form) the map t↦∫[0,t]bγ(Σs(ω),αs(ω)) dst\mapsto\int_{[0,t]}b^\gamma(\Sigma_s(\omega),\alpha_s(\omega))\,ds is continuous on [0,T][0,T], hence measurable by claim 3 of the toolkit, and it is bounded in absolute value by 2(l−1)BT2(l-1)BT by monotonicity. Since 1Ω0(ω)=1\mathbf{1}_{\Omega_0}(\omega)=1, part (b) of the martingale decomposition theorem gives Mtγ(ω)=Σtγ(ω)−Σ0γ(ω)−∫[0,t]bγ(Σs(ω),αs(ω)) dsM^\gamma_t(\omega)=\Sigma^\gamma_t(\omega)-\Sigma^\gamma_0(\omega)-\int_{[0,t]}b^\gamma(\Sigma_s(\omega),\alpha_s(\omega))\,ds, a measurable function of tt with ∣Mtγ(ω)∣≤1+2(l−1)BT≤KM|M^\gamma_t(\omega)|\le1+2(l-1)BT\le K_M. The path t↦∣Mt(ω)∣t\mapsto|M_t(\omega)| is a continuous function of the measurable component paths, hence measurable by measurability of continuous functions of measurable maps, and ∣Mt(ω)∣≤l KM|M_t(\omega)|\le\sqrt{l}\,K_M. Thus Mt(ω)\mathcal{M}_t(\omega) exists for every tt; and for r≤tr\le t we have Mr(ω)≤Mt(ω)\mathcal{M}_r(\omega)\le\mathcal{M}_t(\omega), because by claim 2 of the toolkit both integrals are integrals over R\mathbb{R} of zero extensions, that of the restriction to [0,r][0,r] being dominated pointwise by that of the restriction to [0,t][0,t].

Claim 2. Fix ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_0 and write ξ=α^(ω)∈UA\xi=\hat{\alpha}(\omega)\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} and u=α^(⋅,ω)u=\hat{\alpha}(\cdot,\omega), an admissible representative of ξ\xi by claim 3 of the realized-control lemma, with u(s)=αs(ω)u(s)=\alpha_s(\omega) for every s∈[0,T]s\in[0,T] by claim 2 of the same lemma since ω∈Ω0\omega\in\Omega_0. By claim 2 of the flow stability lemma, Sω=S(Σ0(ω),ξ)S^\omega=S(\Sigma_0(\omega),\xi) is the map furnished by claim 1 of the existence and uniqueness theorem for the initial value Σ0(ω)\Sigma_0(\omega) and the control uu: it is continuous, takes values in Δl\Delta^l, and satisfies Stω,γ=Σ0γ(ω)+∫[0,t]b^γ(Ssω,u(s)) dsS^{\omega,\gamma}_t=\Sigma^\gamma_0(\omega)+\int_{[0,t]}\hat{b}^\gamma(S^\omega_s,u(s))\,ds for all tt and γ\gamma, where b^(x,a)=b(x,a)\hat{b}(x,a)=b(x,a) for x∈Δlx\in\Delta^l by claim 6 of the affine-rate lemma. Subtracting this from the decomposition of Claim 1 and writing yt=Σt(ω)−Stωy_t=\Sigma_t(\omega)-S^\omega_t, we get, for every tt and γ\gamma,

ytγ=Mtγ(ω)+∫[0,t](bγ(Σs(ω),αs(ω))−bγ(Ssω,αs(ω)))ds.y^\gamma_t=M^\gamma_t(\omega)+\int_{[0,t]}\Big(b^\gamma(\Sigma_s(\omega),\alpha_s(\omega))-b^\gamma(S^\omega_s,\alpha_s(\omega))\Big)ds .

The integrand vector s↦b(Σs,αs)−b(Ssω,αs)s\mapsto b(\Sigma_s,\alpha_s)-b(S^\omega_s,\alpha_s) has bounded measurable components (the first summand is measurable as in Claim 1; the second by the composition lemma applied to bγb^\gamma, which is sequentially continuous on Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} by the two Lipschitz bounds of claim 4 of the affine-rate lemma, and to s↦(Ssω,u(s))s\mapsto(S^\omega_s,u(s)), whose components are measurable because SωS^\omega is continuous and uu is a square-integrable, hence measurable, path by claim 3 of the realized-control lemma), so by the norm bound for vector-valued integrals and the state-Lipschitz bound of claim 4 of the affine-rate lemma,

∣yt∣≤∣Mt(ω)∣+∫[0,t]Λb ∣ys∣ ds(t∈[0,T]).(∗)|y_t|\le|M_t(\omega)|+\int_{[0,t]}\Lambda_b\,|y_s|\,ds\qquad(t\in[0,T]) .\qquad(\ast)

Here s↦∣ys∣s\mapsto|y_s| is measurable (a continuous function of measurable components) and bounded by 22. Put v(t)=∫[0,t]∣ys∣ dsv(t)=\int_{[0,t]}|y_s|\,ds; by part (i) of the integration-by-parts lemma vv is continuous on [0,T][0,T]. Integrating (∗)(\ast) over [0,t][0,t] and using monotonicity gives v(t)≤Mt(ω)+Λb∫[0,t]v(s) dsv(t)\le\mathcal{M}_t(\omega)+\Lambda_b\int_{[0,t]}v(s)\,ds for every tt. Now fix t∈(0,T]t\in(0,T]. For s∈[0,t]s\in[0,t], Claim 1 gives Ms(ω)≤Mt(ω)\mathcal{M}_s(\omega)\le\mathcal{M}_t(\omega), hence

v(s)≤Mt(ω)+Λb∫[0,s]v(r) dr(0≤s≤t).v(s)\le\mathcal{M}_t(\omega)+\Lambda_b\int_{[0,s]}v(r)\,dr\qquad(0\le s\le t).

The restriction of vv to [0,t][0,t] is continuous by claim 1 of restriction stability, and for a continuous function the Riemann and Lebesgue integrals over [0,s][0,s] agree by claim 3 of the toolkit. Hence Gronwall's lemma on the interval [0,t][0,t] — with, in the notation of that lemma, its function taken to be v∣[0,t]v|_{[0,t]} and its two constants taken to be Mt(ω)\mathcal{M}_t(\omega) and Λb≥0\Lambda_b\ge0; the letters uu and bb retain their meanings above — yields v(s)≤Mt(ω)exp⁡(Λbs)v(s)\le\mathcal{M}_t(\omega)\exp(\Lambda_bs) for s∈[0,t]s\in[0,t], in particular v(t)≤Mt(ω)exp⁡(Λbt)v(t)\le\mathcal{M}_t(\omega)\exp(\Lambda_bt). Inserting this into (∗)(\ast) proves Claim 2 for t∈(0,T]t\in(0,T]; for t=0t=0 both sides vanish, since y0=0y_0=0 and M0=0M_0=0.

Claim 3. Let ω∈Ω∗\omega\in\Omega_*. Since Ω∗⊆Ω0\Omega_*\subseteq\Omega_0, the map Σ∗\Sigma^* of claim 2 of the comparison lemma satisfies Σt∗(ω)=Σt(ω)\Sigma^*_t(\omega)=\Sigma_t(\omega) for all tt, so W(ω)=∫[0,T]L(Σt(ω),u(t)) dt+G(ΣT(ω))W(\omega)=\int_{[0,T]}L(\Sigma_t(\omega),u(t))\,dt+G(\Sigma_T(\omega)) with u=α^(⋅,ω)u=\hat{\alpha}(\cdot,\omega) as in Claim 2. By the definition of the mean-field cost of a control with the admissible representative uu, and the generalized mean-field cost, F(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))=∫[0,T]L(Stω,u(t)) dt+G(STω)F(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega))=\int_{[0,T]}L(S^\omega_t,u(t))\,dt+G(S^\omega_T). Both running-cost integrands are integrable: they are bounded by the constant CC of the comparison lemma, and measurable by measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps, LL being sequentially continuous by condition 1 of the definition of population cost data and the paths Σ⋅(ω)\Sigma_\cdot(\omega), SωS^\omega, uu having measurable components (Claims 1 and 2). So by (LipC), linearity, and monotonicity,

∣W(ω)−F(Σ0(ω),α^(ω))∣≤KL∫[0,T]∣yt∣ dt+KG∣yT∣,\big|W(\omega)-F(\Sigma_0(\omega),\hat{\alpha}(\omega))\big|\le K_L\int_{[0,T]}|y_t|\,dt+K_G|y_T| ,

with yy as in Claim 2. The function t↦Mt(ω)t\mapsto\mathcal{M}_t(\omega) is continuous on [0,T][0,T] (part (i) of the integration-by-parts lemma), so t↦exp⁡(Λbt)Mt(ω)t\mapsto\exp(\Lambda_bt)\mathcal{M}_t(\omega) is continuous, hence integrable, and bounded by exp⁡(ΛbT)MT(ω)\exp(\Lambda_bT)\mathcal{M}_T(\omega) by Claim 1. Integrating the bound of Claim 2 therefore gives ∫[0,T]∣yt∣ dt≤MT(ω)+ΛbTexp⁡(ΛbT)MT(ω)=Γ MT(ω)\int_{[0,T]}|y_t|\,dt\le\mathcal{M}_T(\omega)+\Lambda_bT\exp(\Lambda_bT)\mathcal{M}_T(\omega)=\Gamma\,\mathcal{M}_T(\omega), while Claim 2 at t=Tt=T gives ∣yT∣≤∣MT(ω)∣+Λbexp⁡(ΛbT)MT(ω)|y_T|\le|M_T(\omega)|+\Lambda_b\exp(\Lambda_bT)\mathcal{M}_T(\omega). Substituting proves Claim 3.

Claim 4. Measurability. By claim 4 of the boundedness, lower-semicontinuity and attainment theorem, the function ξ↦F(z0,ξ)\xi\mapsto F(z_0,\xi) is lower semicontinuous on UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} for the metric ρ\rho. By claim 3 of the sublevel-set characterization (with A=X=UAA=X=\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}), for every real cc the sublevel set {ξ∈UA:F(z0,ξ)≤c}\{\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}:F(z_0,\xi)\le c\} is closed in (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho), so its complement is open and it belongs to the Borel σ\sigma-algebra of (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho), a σ\sigma-algebra being closed under complements. By claim 5 of the realized-control lemma, α^\hat{\alpha} is a random element of (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho), so {ω:F(z0,α^(ω))≤c}=α^−1({ξ:F(z0,ξ)≤c})∈F\{\omega:F(z_0,\hat{\alpha}(\omega))\le c\}=\hat{\alpha}^{-1}\big(\{\xi:F(z_0,\xi)\le c\}\big)\in\mathcal{F} for every real cc, and hence also its complement {ω:F(z0,α^(ω))>c}∈F\{\omega:F(z_0,\hat{\alpha}(\omega))>c\}\in\mathcal{F}; by the generator criterion of the definition of a measurable function, the open rays generating the Borel σ\sigma-algebra of the real line by the Borel generator lemma, the map ω↦F(z0,α^(ω))\omega\mapsto F(z_0,\hat{\alpha}(\omega)) is measurable, that is, a random variable.

The estimate. Fix ω∈Ω\omega\in\Omega, and let ξ=α^(ω)\xi=\hat{\alpha}(\omega) and u=α^(⋅,ω)u=\hat{\alpha}(\cdot,\omega), an admissible representative of ξ\xi by claim 3 of the realized-control lemma (this holds at every ω∈Ω\omega\in\Omega). Apply claim 4 of the flow stability lemma with x0=Σ0(ω)x_0=\Sigma_0(\omega), x0′=z0x_0'=z_0, and ξ′=ξ\xi'=\xi: the functionals of claim 3 there satisfy grγ(ξ′)=⟨ξ−ξ,wγ,r⟩L2=0g^\gamma_r(\xi')=\langle\xi-\xi,w^{\gamma,r}\rangle_{L^2}=0, so the slack constant of claim 4 (written GG in that lemma, a letter that here denotes the terminal cost) may be taken to be 00, and ∣St(z0,ξ)−St(Σ0(ω),ξ)∣≤exp⁡(ΛbT) ∣z0−Σ0(ω)∣|S_t(z_0,\xi)-S_t(\Sigma_0(\omega),\xi)|\le\exp(\Lambda_bT)\,|z_0-\Sigma_0(\omega)| for every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T]. By the definition of FF with the representative uu for both initial states,

F(Σ0(ω),ξ)−F(z0,ξ)=∫[0,T](L(St(Σ0(ω),ξ),u(t))−L(St(z0,ξ),u(t)))dt+G(ST(Σ0(ω),ξ))−G(ST(z0,ξ)),F(\Sigma_0(\omega),\xi)-F(z_0,\xi)=\int_{[0,T]}\Big(L\big(S_t(\Sigma_0(\omega),\xi),u(t)\big)-L\big(S_t(z_0,\xi),u(t)\big)\Big)dt+G\big(S_T(\Sigma_0(\omega),\xi)\big)-G\big(S_T(z_0,\xi)\big),

and (LipC) with monotonicity bounds the absolute value of the right-hand side by KLTexp⁡(ΛbT)∣Σ0(ω)−z0∣+KGexp⁡(ΛbT)∣Σ0(ω)−z0∣K_LT\exp(\Lambda_bT)|\Sigma_0(\omega)-z_0|+K_G\exp(\Lambda_bT)|\Sigma_0(\omega)-z_0|, which is the asserted estimate. ■\blacksquare

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…